The history of the Popish transubstantiation

6 €2¢Lb2Z0 ILL €

ALINIWL

TNT

FROM:THE: LIBRARY:OF
ITRINITY:COLLEGE- TORONTO

Gift of the Friends of the
Library, Trinity College

THE HISTORY

POPISH TRANSUBSTANTIATION,

BY

JOHN COSIN, D.D.

LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM.

A NEW EDITION, REVISED,
WITH THE AUTHORITIES PRINTED AT FULL LENGTH ;
TO WHICH IS ADDED

A MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR,

BY THE REV. J. S. BREWER, M.A.

OF QUEEN’S COLLEGE, OXFORD;
AND CLASSICAL TUTOR IN KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON.

LONDON:

J. LESLIE, GREAT QUEEN STREET;
AND J, H. PARKER, OXFORD.

M.DCCC.XL.

LONDON;
PRINTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY,

.

AND FRANKLYN, —
46 St. Martin’s Lane. ;

[Original Title. |

The History of Popish Transubstantiation. To which is
premised and opposed the Catholic Doctrine of the
Holy Scripture, the Ancient Fathers and the Reformed
Churches, about the Sacred Elements, and Presence
of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist.
Written nineteen years ago in Latin by the Right Reve-
rend Father in God, John, late Lord Bishop of Dur- |
ham, and allowed by him to be published a little before
his death, at the earnest request of his friends. London, —
printed by Andrew Clark for Henry Brome at the Gun
at the west end of St. Paul’s, 1676.

TO THE

REV. J. ENDELL TYLER, B.D.

RECTOR OF ST. GILES-IN-THE-FIELDS,
LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD,

THIS NEW EDITION OF
BISHOP COSIN ON TRANSUBSTANTIATION
IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED

BY THE EDITOR.

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2006 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

hehistoryofth

____-https://archive.org/de
be eho: 1 SD
i é f 4 4 ‘ Pa 2 . ‘ AS sia a

ADVERTISEMENT.

In republishing this tract of Dr. Cosin’s, great care
has been taken to verify all the references. And as
the value of a work like the present greatly depends
on the accuracy of the quotations, they have now, for
the first time, been printed at full length. Some few
have escaped the Editor’s search; some he has been
enabled to correct by means of Dr. Ponet’s admirable
essay on the same subject; but the greatest help was
derived from Aubertin’s grand work De Eucharistia,
to which undoubtedly this treatise is much indebted.

All additions to the original edition are included
between brackets.

King’s College, London,
April 1840.

«*

“a +. a

A

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

Joun Costin, D.D. and Bishop of Durham, was
born on St. Andrew’s day, Nov. 30, 1595, in the
city of Norwich. His father, Giles Cosin, of
Fox-hearth, was a respectable citizen, of compe-
tent fortune. The maiden name of his mother
was Elizabeth Remington, of Remington Castle,
who was descended from an ancient and noble
family. Both his parents were of the household
of faith, both born and bred in the true ancient
apostolic and catholic religion of the Church of
England. Their eldest son, the subject of this
memoir, who deserved so well of the Church and
religion in which he was bred, was sent at an
early age to be educated in the free grammar-
school of his native city. In his fourteenth year
he was removed to Cambridge ; and after taking
his degree, was elected a fellow of Gonville and
Caius College. His early proficiency in all good
a2

x MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

learning soon drew upon him the notice of those
whose good word and opinion he most desired to
possess. In the year 1616 he was invited by the
celebrated Dr. Lancelot Andrews, then bishop of
Ely, to become his librarian; and at the same
time received a similar offer from Dr. John Over-
all, bishop of Lichfield ; to whom, upon the ad-
vice of his tutor, he gave the preference. With
the bishop he became in a short time so great a
favourite, as to be appointed his private secre-
tary; and this is probably the reason why so many
of Dr. Overall’s papers and prelections are found
in the handwriting of Dr.Cosin, who to his sound
judgment as a divine, and his great learning as a
scholar, added this qualification of being a most
beautiful penman.*

The friendship of Bishop Overall undoubtedly
had great influence in fixing Cosin in those sen-
timents which he afterwards so uniformly and
consistently professed. Of all the great men of

those great times (for there were giants in those

* “ And so might deserve,” observes Dr. Basire,
“the praise of the tribe of Zabulon; so well could he

handle the pen of the writer.’—The Dead Man’s Real
Speech, p. 43.

a

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. Xi

days), Bishop Overall may justly be considered
as the founder of that eminent school of divines
who flourished in the seventeenth century. He
was the first to oppose with any success the Cal-
vinistic opinions then prevailing at Cambridge,
which the celebrated Whitaker had taught and
defended with so much zeal and ability. When
Peter Baro was driven by that party from
his professor’s chair, and the Lambeth articles
had been passed by their influence, Overall’s
appointment to the vacant professorship gave
an entirely new turn to the controversy, and
Whitaker’s influence rapidly declined. No man
was better versed than Overall in the abstruse ~
discussions of the schools; none more competent
to decide those differences which then arose
amongst the Dutch divines. And yet, with all
his learning, profound as it was, it was not wider
or deeper than his charity; he was of a pure,
meek, and humble spirit. When he had fixed
the truth, he gave copious latitude to his hearers
to dissent, keeping the foundations sure, without
breach of charity. His desire was for peace and
unity; and as far as his position as a clergyman

and professor permitted him, by public and pri-

xii MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

vate admonitions, by his lectures from the chair,
by his sermons from the pulpit, he furthered so
desirable an object. With this great luminary,
whose propitious aspect shone so conspicuously
on his early fortunes, Cosin continued until 1619,
in which year the bishop died; an event of which
Cosin has given a brief notice to Grotius, in a
letter printed among the letters of the Remon-
strants.*

The great loss which he thus sustained by the
death of his first and most eminent patron, was
in some degree compensated by the kindness of
Dr. Neil, then bishop of Durham. He was re-
ceived into the bishop’s family, and appointed his
domestic chaplain. At the intercession of this
new patron he was promoted, in the year 1624,
to the archdeaconry of the East Riding of the

province of York, upon the retirement of Dr.

* Epistole Remonstrantium, p.659.—I am quite sur-
prised that this most admirable and delightful collection
should have attracted such slight attention; containing
some of the best letters of our ablest divines—Overall,
Andrews, Laud, Cosin, with such men as Vossius, Grotius,
Arminius, Tilenus, and others. There are two editions,
one in 8vo, the other in folio. The latter only is complete ;
the former containing no letters from Englishmen.

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xili

Marmaduke Blakestone, whose daughter, Frances,
he had married. Shortly afterwards he was ad-
vanced to a vacant stall in Durham Cathedral ;
and in July 26, 1626, to the wealthy rectory of
Bransgeth, in the diocese of Durham; and the
same year performed his exercises for the degree
of bachelor of divinity in the University of Cam-
bridge.

Visiting London about this time, he was
engaged in the conferences then held at York
House, in which Dr. Laud, bishop of Bath and
Wells; Dr. White, dean of Carlisle; Dr. Richard
Montague, afterwards bishop of Norwich, took
an active and prominent part. To these discus-
sions the world is indebted for Laud’s Conference,
and White’s Controversy, with Fisher—two of the
most able defences of the Church of England
against the aggressions of popery; and to a si-
milar meeting, not indeed with the papist, but
with the puritan party, we owe that conference
of which an account is now for the first time
printed, and subjoined to this volume.

The chief subject of this dispute arose out
of some positions advanced in Montague’s cele-
brated tract, The Gagger gagged, at which the

XiV MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

Commons had taken offence, and in the year
1625 were proceeding to call the author to a se-
vere and strict account, but were diverted from
their object by an action against the Duke of
Buckingham.* The notice, however, thus at-
tracted towards the work, intended at first only
for circulation in the author’s parish, raised a
great desire in the minds of several members of
both houses to have these points satisfactorily dis-
cussed. To this end a conference was procured
by the Earl of Warwick, to be held at York
House, between Dr. Buckeridge, bishop of Ro-
chester, Dr. White, dean of Carlisle, on the one
side; and Dr. Morton, bishop of Lichfield, on the
other side, who was assisted by a Dr. Preston, a
great favourer of the Presbyterians, the natural
dulness of whose parts had fermented into a
degree of briskness by an admixture of puritan
leaven. The first conference was held on February
11th, and a second, at which Montague assisted in
person, on the17th. A garbled and very partial ac-
count of this meeting will be found in Usher’s Le¢-
ters (epist. cxii.) ; in Dr. Clarke's Life of Preston ;
and in Fuller’s Church History, xi. 17, § 35.

* Heylyn’s Life of Laud, i. 147.

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XV

The assistance which he gave at these con-
ferences tended greatly to bring Dr. Cosin into’
notice; and his reputation increased still more
from the following circumstances :—

King Charles having observed that many of
the attendants in the train of his Queen Henrietta-
Maria, and especially the ladies about the court,
were accustomed to make use of popish service-
books, more particularly the Hours of the Blessed
Virgin,* partly from devotion, and partly from a
desire to employ their leisure hours, was anxious
to further so excellent a practice, and yet to re-
form it by providing books suitable to their pur-
pose. He therefore desired that a little manual ~
of prayers might be collected from the ancient
Greek and Roman liturgies, and from the fathers
of the Church, adapted to different hours of the
day, to be digested in a clear order, and com-
posed in a plain and simple style; as thinking
that a work of this kind might much conduce to
a spirit and habit of true and pure devotion. He
had also every reason to expect that it would tend
greatly to remove the prejudices of. the Roman
Catholics, and furnish the best means to plain

* Hore B. Virginis.

XVi MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

people of answering the objections which that
‘party were accustomed to bring against the
Church of England, which they represented as
an enemy to antiquity, and a favourer of modern
innovations. Accordingly he communicated his
design to two or three of the bishops, on whose
judgment he most relied; and upon the recom-
mendation of Dr. White, then bishop of Norwich
and almoner to the king, this task was delegated
to Dr. Cosin.

For this employment Cosin was admirably
suited both from his learning and piety. His
attention had been turned at an early period
to the advantages of such a compilation. He,
therefore, readily entered on the task, and in
1627 published his book, entitled Private De-
votions, &c.; following chiefly a form which he
found had been once set forth in Latin, by royal
authority, in the time of Queen Elizabeth.* With
the exception of some remarks from the notorious

* “ Horarium regia auctoritate editum.’’ Lond. 1560.
Afterwards reprinted with this title: ‘“‘ Preces private in
studiosorum gratiam collecte et regia auctoritate appro-
bate: noviter impresse, et quibusdam in locis etiam aucte.
Londini. Excudebat Gulielmus Seres, a.p. 1573. cum
privilegio regio.”

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XvVil

Henry Burton and William Prynne, the work was
so well received, that before Dr. Cosin died it
had passed through five editions.

In the year 1634, Dr. Matthew Wren, who
had attended the king when Prince of Wales, as
chaplain, in his journey into Spain, having been
raised to the see of Hereford, Dr. Cosin was ap-
pointed to the mastership of St. Peter’s College in
Cambridge, which had been vacated by Dr. Wren
upon his exaltation to the episcopal bench. Six
years after, upon the death of Dr. Thomas Jack-
son, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford,
he was appointed to the vacant deanery of the
cathedral church of Peterborough. From these
preferments, however, he reaped no great benefit ;
for at this time the parliament at Westminster,
having combined with the Scots, the Puritans, re-
solving not to omit so excellent an opportunity,
used all their influence with the lower house to
harass and distress the bishops. Every idle cir-
cumstance, every odious instrument was employed
to bring the clergy into discredit with the people ;
and as Dr. Cosin had given great offence by his
_ zeal in defending that Church of which he was so
distinguished a member, they gladly laid hold of

XViil MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

a pretext for commencing a prosecution against
him, which they did upon the following circum-
stances :—

There was a clergyman, named Smart, an old
man, of a forward and untractable spirit, who had
been a schoolmaster, and afterwards was made a
prebendary of Durham. This man had raised
himself into a degree of unenviable notoriety by
inveighing, in his sermons at the cathedral,
against the usages of the Church (where, con-
trary to his duty, he had neglected to preach for
seven years before). For this he was. first ques-
tioned at Durham; then called up to the high
commission court at London; and finally, at his
own desire, remitted to York: being sentenced
to recant, upon his refusal he was degraded
from his ecclesiastical functions.* Several years
elapsed before he thought fit to take any steps
against those who had been concerned in this
prosecution: but in 1640, when the turbulence
of the people had set justice at defiance, he
preferred a bill in parliament against thirty per-
sons of the different commission courts of Lon-

* In the year 1628; and particularly for a sermon
which he had preached upon Ps. xxxi. 7.

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xix

don and York, the Dean and Chapter of Durham,
and several others, singling out Cosin from the
rest, and charging him with setting up various
superstitious pictures, and making use of popish
vestments in the service of the Church. This
petition was read in the lower house, Nov. 10,
1640, three days after Dr. Cosin had been in-
stalled in the deanery of Peterborough, a prefer-
ment bestowed upon him by Charles I., whose
chaplain he then was. A violent prosecution was
commenced against him, which ended in his being
sequestered from his ecclesiastical benefices by a
vote of the whole house, Jan. 22, 1642; the first
instance of any clergyman having ever been treated
with so great a degree of severity. On the 15th
March ensuing, the Commons sent twenty-one
articles of impeachment against him to the House
of Lords; but he disproved them all so satisfac-
torily and triumphantly, that not only was he
acquitted most honourably by the lords them-
selves, but even the advocate retained against him
publicly declared that the charge was manifestly
false.

But innocence in those days afforded no im-

munity from suffering. Another motion was made

xx MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

against him in the House of Commons, on the
charge of enticing a young scholar to popery.
He was committed to the custody of the sergeant-
at-arms, to attend daily until the house should call
him to a hearing. After fifty days’ imprisonment,
at his own charge of twenty shillings per diem, dur-
ing which time he was daily exposed to the base
scorn of the city mob, which beset the doors of
the parliament, and hunted down the bishops and
clergy, he was at length brought to his hearing.
The charge was fully disproved, even upon the
evidence of the members themselves; and it was
found that, so far had Dr. Cosin been from encou-
raging popery, that having found the young man
guilty after a strict and impartial examination, he
had expelled him at once from the university.
Yet no costs, no reparation was allowed him for
the injuries which he had suffered: a melancholy
instance (not unexampled even in our own days)
of the disregard to justice which men are apt to
shew whilst acting in a corporate capacity; as if |
no individual responsibility was incurred when
men join hand in hand in committing injustice.*

* “Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not be
unpunished.”—Prov. xi. 21.

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. Xxi

Not long after these occurrences, Dr. Cosin
having been elected vice-chancellor of the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, used all his means for be-
friending the royal party, and induced the mem-
bers of the university to send their plate to the
king; giving another handle to the malice of the
Commons.

For this instance of fidelity towards their un-
fortunate sovereign they were subjected to the
vengeance of the parliament. The Earl of Man-
chester was appointed to visit the university ; in
other words, to eject all the loyal members of that
learned body. The earl proved himself an instru-
ment worthy of his employers. The heads of the
university were plundered and imprisoned; the fel-
lows and scholars of the different colleges turned
out of their chambers without any provision; and
the first person whom these visitors selected for
their victim was Dr. Cosin, against whom they
issued a warrant, March 13, 1643, deposing him
from his mastership; ‘ for opposing,” as they
stated, “ the proceedings of parliament, and other
scandalous acts in the university.”’

Thus ejected from his preferment, he remained

nearly twenty years under sentence of depriva-

Xxil MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

tion. But this punishment did not satisfy the
malice of his enemies; his name appears fre-
quently, even after the sentence, upon the jour-
nals of the house; and he was continually ha-
rassed and perplexed by pursuivants and mes-
sengers, until he was compelled to seek safety
in exile.

Towards the end, therefore, of the year 1643,
at the desire of the king, he passed over into
France, and fixing his habitation at Paris, exer-
cised his ministerial office among those members
of his own communion who had taken refuge in
that city during the raging of the civil wars. In
the chapel of Sir Richard Brown, at that time the
English agent at Paris, he performed divine ser-
vice according to the rites and ceremonies of the
Church of England. His presence and advice
strengthened and comforted many who were per-
plexed at the difficulties and distresses of their
own Church; some it reduced who had quite gone
over to popery; others it confirmed in the truth, |
who, by conversing with the Romanists, and par-
ticularly the Jesuits, had nearly made shipwreck
of the faith.

But unfortunately, while thus engaged in

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. Xxili

strengthening and consoling others, he was sub-
jected in his own person to a grievous and severe
affliction, which he ever lamented as one of the
greatest infelicities of his life. His own son,
who, with other Protestants, frequented a school
in the neighbourhood, conducted under the super-
intendence of the Jesuits, was insidiously imbued
with the Romish tenets. No subsequent efforts
on the part of his father could shake the youth,
or induce him to change his opinions. He lived
and died in the Romish faith.

These proceedings of the Romish emissaries,
who continued their attempts with unabated vigour
to entangle the minds of the English, especially of
the noble and wealthy, engaged his vigilance and
attention. ‘To ensure success to their cause, they
had endeavoured to throw discredit upon the Re-
formation; and, denying the apostolical succession
of the English bishops, asserted, that as there
were no rightly ordained ministers in the Church
of England, so the sacrament of the eucharist
could never be duly administered by those in its
communion. Dr. Cosin was challenged by them,
_ and especially by one Robinson, the prior of the
English Benedictines at Paris, to disprove their

XXIV MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

statements. The sum of this controversy in de-
fence of the validity of the English ordinations
he afterwards committed to writing, and sent an
account of it to Dr. George Morley (the great
friend of Izaak Walton), his companion in suffer-
ing, then an exile in Belgium. But unfortunately
these papers were never printed; although at the
time they excited much attention, and were very
serviceable to the cause of the English Church.

After the fatal battle of Worcester in 1651,
King Charles II. having returned to France, re-
sided at Paris, and regularly attended divine ser-
vice both Sundays and holydays in the chapel
where Dr. Cosin, and Dr. Earle, afterwards bishop
of Gloucester, officiated. In this practice he con-
tinued for three years, until, by the intrigues of
Cardinal Mazarin, who then ruled the French
court, the king was permitted to remain no longer
in Paris.

Compelled, therefore, to seek a new place of
refuge, he retired into Germany, where Dr. Cosin
had resolved to follow him; but the king desired
him to remain at Paris, and to continue the exer-
cise of his usual functions. While Charles was at

Cologne, the English Jesuits who frequented the

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXV

court, used all their efforts to induce him to em-
brace the Roman Catholic religion. Among other
arguments they urged their great dogma of tran-
substantiation, which they boasted had ever been
acknowledged as an article of faith in all ages of
the Church. To determine the question, an ap-
peal was made to Dr.Cosin, who had distinguished
himself for his skill in the fathers and ecclesias-
tical antiquity ; and accordingly he produced his
celebrated History of Transubstantiation, which is
now reprinted. This dissertation remained in
MS. for some time, until it was published by Dr.
Durell, prebendary of Durham, and afterwards
dean of Windsor, with the author’s consent, at
London, in the year 1675. The following year it
was translated into English by Luke de Beaulieu,
and printed at London.

These and other theological studies continued
to employ such portions of his time as were
not occupied by his spiritual cure; and in 1657
he published A Scholastical History of the Canon
of the Holy Scripture; or the certain and indu-
bitable Books thereof, as they are received in
the Church of England. In this history he com-
menced with the completion of the canon under

b

XXVl MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

the Jews, and deduced it to the year 1546, when
the uncatholic Council of Trent most unwarrant-
ably interfered with this and other Catholic tradi-
tions. It was dedicated to Dr. Matthew Wren,
bishop of Ely, then cruelly confined in the Tower.
The index, containing a chronological list of au-
thors quoted, was furiously attacked by Philip
Labbe, the Jesuit, in the second part of his dis-
sertation De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. Paris,
1660, p. 811.

But while thus defending the religion in which
he was bred, and approving himself an able cham-
pion in offence and defence, one portion of his
conduct during his residence abroad seems to
have given rise to some suspicion. Fuller had
stated in his Church History, that Dr. Cosin
“‘ neither joined with the Church of French Pro-
testants at Charenton, nigh Paris, nor kept any

> "This error

communion with the papists therein.
of the Church-historian, undoubtedly not ori-
‘ginating in any ill-feelings, was corrected by
Dr. Cosin, in a letter which is published by
Heylyn in the Examen Historicum. Even before
this Dr. Cosin had stated his opinion on com-

municating with the foreign Churches, in a letter

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXVli

which he addressed to Mr. Watson, then attend-
ing at the prince’s court in Jersey.* ‘* They are
here,” he says, “* so exceeding uncharitable, and
somewhat worse, that I know not how any man
(who understands himself, and makes a conscience
of what he does) can enter into any communion
with them in those doctrines and practices which
they hold necessary to salvation ; and wherein they
make their essential note of difference, their reli-
gion and their Church, to consist. And that I may
answer your demand in brief (for they say you are
all to come hither), it is far less safe to join with
these men (viz. the Romanists) , that alter the cre-
denda, the vitals of religion, than with those that
meddle only with the agenda and rules of reli-
gion, if they meddle no further; and where it is
not in our power to help it, there is no doubt but
in these things God will accept the will for the
deed, if that will (without our assent or approba-
tion to the contrary) be preserved entire: though
in the meanwhile we suffer a little for it, op-
pression must not make us leave our own Church.
They of Geneva are to blame in many things,
and defective in some; they shall never have my

* Dated from St. Germains, June 19, 1646.

XXVili MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

approbation of their doings, nor let them have
yours: yetI do not see that they have set up any
new articles of faith, under pain of damnation to
all the world that will not receive them for such
articles ; and you know whose case that is.” In
conformity with the opinion expressed in this ex-
tract, it was his custom to communicate with the
members of the Charenton. And in the letter
printed by Heylyn, and addressed to Mr. Warren
from Paris, April 6, 1658, Dr. Cosin states that he
never refused to join with Protestants either there
or elsewhere, in all things wherein they join with
the Church of England. In support of which as-
sertion he instances the fact of his having buried
several English persons at Charenton, in the ce-
metery belonging to the Protestants at Paris. “T
have baptised,” he says, “ many of their children
at the request of their own ministers, with whom
I have good acquaintance. Many of the people

have frequented our public prayers with great

reverence ; and I have delivered the holy commu- |

nion to them according to our own order, which
they observed religiously. I have married divers
persons of good condition among them; and I

have presented some of their scholars to be or-

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XxXix

dained deacons and priests here by our own
bishops ; and the Church of Charenton approved
of it, and I preached here publicly at their ordi-
nation. Besides I have been (as often as I had
spare time from attending our own congregation)
to pray and sing psalms with them, and to hear
both the weekly and Sunday sermon at Charen-
ton, whither two of my children also (pensioned
here in a Protestant family at Paris) have daily
repaired for that purpose with the gentlewoman
that governed them.”

In this point Dr. Cosin seems chiefly to have
been guided by the principles of Bishop Andrews,
and other Catholic divines of the Church of Eng-
land. For in his second epistle to Peter des
Moulins, Bishop Andrews writes :* “ Nec tamen
si nostra divini juris sit, inde sequitur, vel quod
sine ea salus non sit, vel quod stare non possit
ecclesia. Czcus sit, qui non videat stantes sine
ea ecclesias; ferreus sit qui salutem eis neget.
Nos non sumus illi ferrei; latum inter ista discri-
men ponimus. Potest abesse aliquid quod divini
juris sit (in exteriore quidem regimine), ut tamen
substet salus.—Non est hoc damnare rem, melius

* Opuscula, p. 176.

XXX MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

illi aliquid anteponere.” And again, in his third
letter to the same person :* “Queris tum peccent-
ne in jus divinum ecclesie vestree? Non dixi. Id
tantum dixi, abesse ab ecclesiis vestris aliquid
quod de jure divino sit; culpa autem vestra non
abesse, sed injuria temporum.” The same opi-
nion is expressed by Dr. Bramhall, in his Vindi-
cation of Grotius, p.614: “ Episcopal divines do
not deny those Churches (viz. the Lutheran and
other foreign Protestant Churches) to be true
Churches, wherein salvation may be had. We
advise them, as it is our duty, to be circumspect
for themselves, and not to put it to more ques-
tion, whether they have ordination or not, or
desert the general practice of the universal Church
for nothing, when they may clear it if they please.
Their case is not the same with those who labour
under invincible necessity. What mine own
sense is of it, I have declared many years since to
the world in print; and in the same way received
thanks, and a public acknowledgment of my .
moderation, from a French divine.’+ And to
conclude this subject, Archdeacon Basire, his

* Opuscula, p. 195.
+ Again, in his Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon,

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. Xxxi

particular friend, who preached the sermon at
his funeral, informs us, that “ this his Christian
condescension towards the reformed Churches
was afterwards requited by a singular respect
from the chief doctors of those reformed Churches,
whom to condemn rashly is to storm whole
Churches against charity.” Who shall blame
him for entertaining these feelings of affection for
the Church at Charenton, when adorned by men

of such eminence as Aubertin and Daillé ?* Their

p. 144. ‘It doth not follow that because faith is essential,
therefore every point of true faith is essential; or because
discipline is essential, therefore every point of right disci-
pline is essential ; or because the sacraments are essential,
therefore every useful rite is essential. Many things may
be lawful, many things may be laudable, yet many things
may be necessary necessitate precepti, commanded by God,
of divine institution, that are not essential, nor necessary,
necessitate medii. The want of them may be a great defect,
it may be a great sin; and yet if it proceed from invincible
necessity, or invincible ignorance, it doth not absolutely
exclude from heaven. The essences of things are unalter-
able ; and therefore the least degree of saving faith, of ec-
clesiastical discipline, of sacramental communion, that ever
was in the Catholic Church, is sufficient to preserve the
true being of a Church.’”? Compare also p. 164 of the
same treatise.

* Daillé writes thus to a friend at Cambridge: “ Tuus

Xxxll MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

friendship also is the best testimony at least of his
affection for the reformed religion ; upon his sin-
cerity in which respect some have thought fit to
cast suspicion. |

Thus passed his life abroad, until such time as
monarchy was restored in England. To reward
his services, and compensate for the sufferings to
which he had been exposed, the king thought fit
to promote him to the bishopric of Durham: on
the 2d of December in the same year, he was con-
secrated, with six other bishops, in the Abbey
church of Westminster. Dr. Wm. Sancroft, his
chaplain, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury,
preached the consecration-sermon.

Retiring to his diocese as soon as he could
escape from the congratulations of his friends and
the occupations of public business, he set himself
zealously to work to restore the primitive disci-
pline and order of the Church. All had been

utterly neglected or thrown into confusion during .

Cosin, imo noster (intercedit enim nobis cum illo suavis —
amicitia atque familiaritas) mihi admodum_probatur.
Bestize sunt, et quidem fanatici, qui eum de papismo sus-
pectum habent, e quo vix reperias qui sit magis alienus.”’
—HeEytywn’s Exam. p. 294.

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXxXili

the late tumults. He visited his entire diocese,
reduced to uniformity the forms and services which
had fallen into desuetude, examined diligently the
lives and conversation of the clergy, and employed
every means which he lawfully possessed of re-
storing what had been lost, or amending what
had been impaired by carelessness and folly.
Among other good practices thus restored, was
the public reading of the daily service ;* the form

* “He was punctual in his methods,” says Dr. Basire ;
“for, to my knowledge, he loved order in his studies and
functions ; and he often repeated and generally observed
the apostle’s canon, ‘ Let all things be done decently and
in order’ (1 Cor. xiv. 40). He was so exact in putting in
practice the discipline of our Church, that he strictly en-
joined, according to the rubric, the daily public offices of
morning and evening prayer within the churches of his
diocese ; which, since the decay of the primitive devotion
of daily communions in the old Christianity, is instead of
the juge sacrificium of the Jews, the daily sacrifice of a
lamb morning and evening (Exod. xxix. 39). And ’tis
both our sin and shame, that, since God is graciously
pleased (under the gospel) to spare our lambs, we Chris-
tians should in requital grudge our good God (except in
case of real necessity) the calves of our lips (Hos. xiv. 2), to
praise Him daily in the public congregations. Without
vanity, I have (through God’s providence) travelled and
taken an impartial survey of both the Eastern and Western

b2

XXXiV MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

of bidding prayer to be used before the sermon,
an ancient practice authorised by the canons of
our Church, generally received in the foreign re-
formed Churches, but since the time of Cart-
wright superseded by long extempore prayers,
which had formed the ready instruments of vent-
ing political opinions, or of stating doctrines edi-
fying neither to.the speaker nor the hearer.

He found his diocese rich, yet left it richer,
employing during his episcopate a great share of
his large revenues in repairing or rebuilding the
various edifices belonging to the bishopric, which
had been ruined or demolished during the civil
Churches, and can assert, upon mine own experience, that —
in the Eastern Churches the Greeks and Armenians, &c.
constantly observe their daily public service of God; and
in the Western Churches, I, passing through Germany (to
take the like survey), did with comfort behold the same
daily public offices, with full congregations, in those they
call the Lutherans and Calvinists (I do hate, but, through
the iniquity of the times, I cannot avoid those schismatical
names, expressed only for distinction’s sake) ; nay, to give
Rome her due, they, in their way (though erroneous), ob-
serve the same daily practice strictly. And truly, when
the laity doth daily plough, sow, work, and provide for
the clergy, it is but Christian equity that the clergy

should daily offer public prayers and praises for the labo-
rious laity.”.—Dead Man’s Speech, p. 94-6.

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXXV

wars. The money which he expended in this
way on the castles of Bishop’s Awkland, Durham,
and Burlington House, amounted, according to
Dr. Smith, to 16,000/.; according to others, to
no less than 26,0007. He likewise built and en-
dowed two hospitals: one at Durham for eight
poor people, with a revenue of 70/.; the other at
Awkland for four, with a yearly revenue of 30/.
The school-houses at Durham cost him 300/. ;
the library near the castle 800/., and the books
which he bequeathed to it 2,000/., and he left an
annual pension to the librarian of twenty marks
for ever. But his generosity was not confined to ~
his diocese. He rebuilt the east-end of the chapel
at Peter-house, in Cambridge, at an expense of
320/.; gave to the library books to the value of
1,000/. ; founded five scholarships in the same col-
lege, each of 10/. annual value, and three in Caius
College of 20 nobles a-piece per annum. These
various benefactions, together with an annual be-
quest of 8/. per annum to the common chest of
the two colleges respectively, amounted to 2,500/.
Towards the erecting of two session-houses in
Durham he gave 1000/.; for the redemption of
Christian captives in Algiers, 500/.; for the relief

| XXXvi MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

of distressed loyalists in England, 800/.; and not
to mention his other benefactions, let it be enough
to state that this charitable and generous prelate,
during the eleven years in which he held the see
of Durham, spent yearly above 2,000/. in pious
and charitable purposes.

For a long period he had been greatly afflicted
with the stone; and disease sapping his little
strength, already sinking under the weight of
many years, broke down his frame by a kindly

and gentle dissolution :
‘ \ 7 bd 9 f e SJ
opuKkoa Tahara owpar evvalet porn.

In the midst of his useful labours, he was attacked
by a pectoral dropsy in his seventy-eighth year.
Finding his end approaching, he was desirous of
receiving his last viaticum. Dr. William Flower,
his chaplain, seeing his great pain and infirmity,
asked him whether, by reason of his weakness,
he would have the bread only dipt: but he
answered, “ No;” and said that he desired to
receive it in both kinds, according to Christ’s in- —
stitution. And that nothing on his part might
betoken a want of reverence, he requested, weak as

he was, to be lifted into his chair; and so baring

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXXVil

his head, which had been bound up by reason of
his violent pains, he received the eucharist about
an hour and a half before his death. Being un-
able to kneel, he devoutly repeated part of the
penitent prayer of Manasses, (“‘ Lord, I bow the
knee of my heart”); and so sinking gradually,
with these words on his lips, “* Lord Jesus, come
quickly,” his last act was the elevation of his

hand, his last ejaculation, “ Lord > where-

with he expired without pain, according to his
frequent prayer unto God, that he might not die
of a sudden or painful death.

Thus died he ripe in years, full of honour and
good fruits. Like his brethren, not exempted,
during the earlier part of his life, from painful
anticipations of the evil which was coming on his
Church and country, nor yet free from his share
of sufferings when those evils were realised. Yet
truly happy in this, in that he lived to see the
Church which he loved restored to its previous in-
tegrity ; the Church of Durham, which he served,
augmented; the doctrines and discipline which
he had defended once more triumphant.

No little happiness it was to have lived in the
days of Overall and Andrews, more to have con-

XXXVill MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

versed with them, above all to have been honoured
with their friendship. When, therefore, they had
been called to their rest, who, like David’s captains
of old, were “all mighty men, famous through-
out the house of their fathers; that summons
was not unwelcome which called him to follow
those in their death of whom he had been no un-
worthy disciple’in their lives.

In person he was tall and erect. “ God and
nature,” says Dr. Basire, “ did frame his earthly
tabernacle of a goodly structure; of strong na-
tural abilities and sound understanding, which he
enjoyed to the last.”

He died at his house in Pall Mall, oe 15,
1672; but, owing to the bad state of the roads,
was not removed till the spring to Bishop’s Awk-
land; and therefore his obsequies were not per-
formed until the 29th of April, Dr. Guy Carleton,
bishop of Bristol, reading the service, and Dr.
Basire preaching the sermon. He was buried in
the middle of the chapel, under a monument of
black marble, upon which was engraved the fol-—
lowing inscription, prepared by himself :—

In non morituram memoriam Johannis

Cosini, -Episcopi Dunelmensis, qui hoe sa-

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXXix

cellum construxit, ornavit, et Deo consecra-
vit, anno Domini mpcrxv. in festo S. Petri:
obiit xv. die mensis Januarii, anno Domini
MDCLXXI. et hic sepultus est, exspectans fe-
licem corporis sui resurrectionem, ac vitam in

coeelis eternam.

Requiescat in pace.

On the sides this quotation was engraved—

Beati mortui qui moriuntur in Domino:

Requiescunt enim a laboribus suis.

He appointed as the executors of his will, part
of which, containing a profession of his faith, was
written in Latin, Sir Thomas Orby, knight and
baronet; Dr. John Durell, prebendary of Windsor
and Durham (who published his treatise on Tran-
substantiation) ; George Davenport, his domestic
chaplain ; and Miles Stapleton, his secretary, for
whom he entertained great affection and esteem.
He left several donations in his will, some of which
are enumerated by Mr. Chalmers in his Biogra-
phical Dictionary, trom whom the subjoined list

of his writings is, with some alterations and addi-

tions, derived.

1. Collection of Private Devotions. 12mo. Re-
printed in 1838. |

xl MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

2. Scholastical History of the Canon of Holy
Scripture. Lond. 1657; reprinted in 1672.

3, A Letter to Dr. Collins on the Sabbath, dated
from Peterhouse, Jan. 24, 1635. Printed in the Bi-
bliotheca Literaria, 1723. 4:to.

4. Two Letters to Lord Chancellor Hyde. The
first dated from Paris, Nov. 5, 1655; the other from
Paris, Oct. 18, 1658. Printed in the Clarendon State
Papers.

5. A Letter to Mr. Cordel, dated Paris, Feb. 7,
1650. Printed at the end of a pamphlet, entitled
“The Judgment of the Church of England in the case
of Lay Baptism,” &c., of which a second edition was
printed in 1712.

6. A Letter addressed to Mr. Watson, dated St.
Germains, June 19, 1646.

7. Another to the same person, against the use of
unauthorised versions of the Psalms in the public ser-
vice of the Church. Both published by Dr. R. Wat-
son, in a pamphlet, entitled, “ Dr. Cosin’s Opinion
for communicating rather with Geneva than Rome.”
Lond. 1684.

8. A Letter addressed to Mr. Warren, dated Paris,
April 6, 1658, defending himself from Dr. Fuller’s
animadversions. Printed in Heylyn’s Examen Histo-
ricum, p. 284. To this letter Lord Chancellor Hyde
refers in a letter printed in Dr. Barwick’s Life, p. 328.

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xli

9. A Letter to Dr. Morton, Bishop of Durham,
giving an account of his studies when in exile; and a
Memorial of his against the Council of the Lateran
in 1215. Both published by Des Maizeaux, in vol. vi.
of “The present State of the Republic of Letters,”
1730.

10. Regni Anglize Religio Catholica, 1652. Being
a brief scheme of the doctrine and discipline of the
Church of England, written at the request of Sir Ed-
ward Hyde. Published by Dr. Smith in “ Vite Eru-
ditissimorum Virorum.” 4to. 1707.

11. The History of Transubstantiation ; first writ-
ten in Latin. Published by Dr. Durell, Lond. 1675.
8vo. Translated into English 1676, and published by
Luke de Beaulieu.

A second Part exists in MS., which was presented
to the Library of Durham by its late munificent
bishop.

12. The Differences in the chief Points of Re-
ligion between the Roman Catholics and us of the
Church of England. Printed at the end of Bishop
Bull’s “ Corruptions of the Church of Rome.”

13. Notes on the Book of Common Prayer. Pub-
lished by Dr. Nichols, at the end of his “Comment
on the Book of Common Prayer.” The autograph of
these annotations is in the British Museum. Harl.

MSS. 7311.

xlii MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

14. Account of a Conference in Paris between
Cyril, Archbishop of Trapezond, and Dr. John Cosin.

In the same work.

The following pieces have never been printed :

1. An Answer to a Popish Pamphlet, pretending
that St. Cyprian was a Papist.

2. An Answer to Four Queries of a Roman Ca-
tholic about the Protestant Religion.

3. An Answer to a Paper delivered by a Popish
Bishop to the Lord Inchequin.

4, Annales Ecclesiastici. Imperfect.

5. An Answer to Father Robinson’s Papers con-
cerning the Validity of the English Ordinations.

6. Historia Conciliorum.

7. Against the Forsakers of the Church of Eng-
land, &c.

8. Of the Abuse of Auricular Confession in the
Church of Rome.

9. His Opinion touching the Headship and Supre-
macy of the Church. See Harl. MSS. No. 750.

10. Several Letters in the Harleian Collection of
MSS., Nos. 3783, 7033; in Dr. Birch’s Collection in
the British Museum; and in the Durham Library.

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xliii

Last Will and Testament.

Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini, qui fecit celum

et terram.

In nomine et honore ejusdem Domini Dei nostri, Patris,
et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, summe ac individue Trini-

tatis.

Quoniam statutum est omnibus semel mori, et corpus
uniuscujusque dissolutum iri, tempus vero dissolutionis
meee cum incertum sit, de qua tamen quasi in propinquo
esset, assidua animi meditatione sollicitus, et frequenti cor-
poris infirmitate pulsatus, subinde cogito; ego Johannes
Cosinus, humilis ecclesie Dei administer, et modo permis-
sione altissimi episcopus Dunelm. non ponens spem meam
in preesenti hac vita, sed ad alteram (que futura est) in
ceelis eternam, ex divina tandem misericordia, adipiscen-
dam semper anhelans, et humiliter orans pro salute anime
mee, ut per merita Jesu Christi, Filii Dei vivi, et Redemp-
toris ac Mediatoris nostri unici, omnia mea mihi remittan-
tur delicta; hoc testamentum, continens ultimam volunta-
tem meam, sana mente et puro corde condo, ordino, et
facio, in hac forma que sequitur.

Ante omnia, Domino nostro Deo omnipotenti gratias
ago quas possum maximas, quod me ex fidelibus et bonis
parentibus in hanc vitam nasci, atque in ecclesia sua, per
sanctum baptismi lavacrum ab ipso institutum, ad vitam
eeternam renasci voluerit, meque a juventute mea in doc-

trina sana erudiverit et sanctorum suorum participem ef-

xliv MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

fecerit, fidemque non fictam vel mortuam, sed veram et
vivam in animo meo impresserit, una cum adjuncta spe
firma fore posthac ut perducar ad vitam sempiternam.
Que quidem fides in eo consistit, ut adoremus et venere-
mur Deum, in eumque credamus, et in quem misit, Filium
ejus dilectissimum, Verbum eternum ante secula genitum,
Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, qui propter nos nos-
tramque salutem ex beatissima Virgine Maria, superve-
niente in eam Spiritu Sancto, carnem in seeculo sumpsit et
homo factus est; deinde natus, passus, crucifixus, mortuus
ac sepultus, et postquam ad inferos descendisset, ex sepul-
chro suo resurrexit, et captivam ducens captivitatem, ad-
scendit in ccelos, ubi ad dexteram Dei Patris sedet, et reg-
nat in eternum; inde vero, Spiritum Sanctum (in quem
pariter nobis credendum est) misit, a Patre Filioque pro-
cedentem, per quem largissime dona distribuit hominibus,
et ecclesiam suam catholicam in communione sanctorum,
in divinis sacramentis, in vera fide, in doctrina sana, ac
moribus Christianis instituit; una cum remissione pecca-
torum piis omnibus, et dignos in eadem ecclesia poeniten-
ti fructus proferentibus, impertienda ; quibus etiam quum
in supremo seeculi die de ccelis rediturus ut mortuos resus-
citet, et omnes judicet, collaturus est zeternam beatitudi-
nem ; reliquis vero infidelibus, aut qui secundum carnem |
vixerint, et converti, sive penitentiam agere nolentibus
zternum supplicium irrogaturus. In hac fide, que totius
sacre Scripture summa est, et absolutissimum compen-
dium, sanctis (Jude vers. 3) semel tradita, et ab apostolis

eorumque successoribus propagata, atque ad nos usque de-

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xlv

rivata vivere me profiteor, et ut in ea ad ultimum vite spi-
ritum constanter ac sine hesitatione perseverem et moriar,
assiduis quantum possum precibus a Deo contendo; unita-
tem interea colens et servans vinculum pacis ac charitatis
cum omnibus ubique Christianis, qui inter tanta ecclesize
mala, distractiones et calamitates (quibus equidem non
possum non illachrymari) hanc fidem integre admittunt,
nullamque ejus partem in dubium vocant. Spero etiam,
quee est Dei Christique OeavOporov, Servatoris nostri benig-
nitas omnes eos, qui hee a Deo revelante tradita simpliciter
nobiscum crediderint et pie vixerint, in magno illo die Do-
mini salvos fore, etiamsi singulorum rationem reddere, vel
modum exponere, vel questiones circa ea exortas solvere,
vel dum forte satagunt hallucinationes aliquot effugere, et
penitus ab errore immunes esse nequiverint.

Sed quascunque olim hereses et queecunque etiam schis-
mata, quibuscunque tandem nominibus appellentur, prisca
et universalis sive catholica Christi ecclesia unanimi con-
sensu rejecit et condemnavit, ego pariter condemno et
rejicio; una cum omnibus earundem heresium fautoribus
hodiernis, sectariis et fanaticis, qui spiritu malo acti men-
tiuntur sese Spiritu Dei afflari. Horum omnium, inquam,
hereses et schismata, ego quoque Ecclesiz nostre Angli-
cane, imo Catholice, symbolis, synodis et confessionibus
addictissimus pariter improbo constanterque rejicio atque
repudio. In quorum numero pono non tantum segreges
Anabaptistas et eorum sequaces (proh dolor!) nimium mul-
tos, sed etiam novos nostrates Independentes et Presbyte-

rianos, genus hominum malitie, inobedientic et seditionis

xlvi MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

spiritu abreptum, qui inaudita a seeculis audacia et perfidia,
tanta nuper perpetrarunt facinora, in contemptum et op-
probrium omnis religionis et fidei Christiane, quanta qui-
dem non sine horrore dici aut commemorari queant: quin-
etiam a corruptelis et ineptis nuperque natis sive papisticis
(quas vocant) superstitionibus, doctrinis, et assumentis novis
in avitam ac primevam laudatissime olim tam orthodoxe
et catholice ecclesiz religionem ac fidem jamdudum con-
tra sacram Scripturam, veterumque patrum regulas ac mores
introductis, me prorsus jam alienum esse, atque a juventute
mea semper fuisse, sancte et animitus adsevero.
Ubicunque vero terrarum ecclesie, Christiano nomine
cense veram, priscam et catholicam religionem fidemque
profitentur, ut Deum Patrem, Filium et Spiritum Sanctum
uno ore et mente invocant ac colunt, eis, si me uspiam actu
jam nunc jungi prohibet, vel distantia regionum, vel dissidia
hominum, vel aliud quodcunque obstaculum, semper tamen
animo, mente et affectu conjungor ac coalesco; id quod de
Protestantibus preesertim et bene reformatis ecclesiis intel-
ligi volo: fundamentis enim salvis, diversitatem, ut opini-
onum, ita quoque rituum circa res juxta adnatas, et minus
necessarias, nec universali veteris ecclesia praxi repugnan-
tes in aliis ecclesiis (quibus nobis preesidendum non est)
amice, placide et pacifice ferre possumus, atque adeo per-
ferre debemus. Eis vero omnibus qui male consulti quo-
quo modo me iniquis calumniis insectati sunt, vel adhuc
insectari non desinunt, ego quidem ignosco, et Deum serio
precor, ut ipse quoque ignoscere, et meliorem eis mentem

inspirare velit. Operam interim et mihi, et aliis omnibus

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xlvii

fratribus, preesertim episcopis, et ministris ecclesie Dei,
quantum ex illius gratia possumus, dandam et conferen-
dam esse existimo, ut tandem sopiantur, vel saltem minu-
antur, religionis dissidia, atque ut pacem sectemur cum
omnibus, et sanctimoniam. Quod ut fiat quam ocissime,
faxit Deus, pacis autor et amator concordie. Cujus im-
mensam misericordiam oro et obtestor, ut me in peccatis
et iniquitatibus conceptum ab omni humane infirmitatis
labe et corruptela repurget, dignumque ex indigno per
magnam clementiam suam faciat, mihique passionem et
immensa merita dilectissimi sui Filii Domini nostri Jesu
Christi, ad delictorum meorum omnium expiationem ap-
plicet : ut quum novissima vite hora non improvisa vene-
rit, ab angelis suis in sinum Abrahe raptus, et in societate
sanctorum et electorum suorum collocatus, eterna felici-

tate perfruar.

Hee preefatus que ad religionem et anime mee statum
ac salutem spectant, queeque Latino sermone a me dictata
atque exarata sunt, reliqua, que ad sepulturam corporis, et
bonorum meorum temporalium dispositionem attinent, ser-

mone patrio perscribi faciam, ac perorabo.

.

TO THE

Ricut Hon. HENEAGE LORD FINCH,

BARON OF DAVENTRY, LORD KEEPER OF THE GREAT
SEAL OF ENGLAND.

MY LORD,
Tue excellency of this book answers the great-
ness of its author, and perhaps the badness of
the version is also proportioned to the meanness
of the translator: but the English being for those
that could not understand the original, that they
also might be instructed by so instructive a dis-
course, I hope with them my good intent will
excuse my fault; only my fear is, I shall want a
good plea wherewith to sue out my pardon for
having intituled a person of the highest honour
to so poor a labour as is this of mine. My lord,
these were the inducements which set me upon
this attempt, it being the subject of the book to
clear and assert an important truth, which is as a
criterion whereby to know the sons of the Church
of England from her adversaries on both hands ;
those that adore, and those that profane the
blessed sacrament; those that destroy the visible
sign, and those that deny the invisible grace; I
thought I might justly offer it to so pious and so
B

2 THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

great a son of this Church, who owned her in her
most calamitous condition, and defends her in
her happy and most envied restoration. I was
also persuaded that the translation, bearing your
illustrious name, would be thereby much recom-
mended to many, and so become the more gene-
rally useful: and I confided much in your good-
ness and affability, who being by birth and merits
raised to a high eminency, yet do willingly con-
descend to things and persons of low estate.

My lord, I have only this one thing more to
allege for myself, that besides the attestation of
public fame, which I hear of a long time speaking
loud for you, I have these many years lived in a
family where your virtues being particularly known
are particularly admired and honoured; so that I
could not but have an extraordinary respect and
veneration for your lordship, and be glad to have
any occasion to express it. If these cannot clear
me, I must remain guilty of having taken this
opportunity of declaring myself

Your Lordship’s
Most humble and most obedient Servant,

LUKE DE BEAULIEU.

THE

PUBLISHER TO THE READER.

Ir is now nineteen years since this historical
treatise was made by the Right Reverend Father
in God John Cosin, when (in the time of the late
accursed rebellion) he was an exile in Paris for
his loyalty and religion’s sake; for being then
commanded to remain in that city by his gracious
Majesty that now is (who was departing into Ger-
many by reason of a league newly made by the
French king with our wicked rebels), he was also
ordered by him, as he had been before by his
blessed father Charles the First, a prince never
enough to be commended, to perform divine
offices in the royal chapel, and to endeavour to
keep and confirm in the Protestant religion, pro-
fessed by the Church of England, his fellow-
exiles, both of the royal family and others his
countrymen who then lived in that place. Now
the occasion of his writing this piece was this :—
when his gracious Majesty had chosen Cologne
for the place of his residence, being solemnly in-
vited, he visited a neighbouring potent prince of

4. TO THE READER.

the empire, of the Roman persuasion, where it
fell out, as it doth usually where persons of dif-
ferent religions do meet, some Jesuits began to
discourse of controversies with those noblemen
and worthies (who never forsook their prince in
his greatest straits, but were his constant attend-
ants, and imitators of his ever-constant profession
of the reformed religion), charging the Church of
England with heresy, especially in what concerns
the blessed sacrament of the Lord’s supper. They
would have it that our Church holds no real, but
only a kind of imaginary presence of the body
and blood of Christ; but that the Church of
Rome retained still the very same faith concern-
ing this sacred mystery which the Catholic Church
constantly maintained in all ages; to wit, that
the whole substance of the bread and wine is
changed into the substance of the body and blood
of Christ, and right well called transubstantiation
by the Council of Trent. This, and much more
to the same purpose, was pronounced by the
Jesuits, in presence of his Majesty and the Ger-
man prince, with as much positiveness and confi-
dence as if it had been a clear and self-evident
truth owned by all the learned. |

His sacred Majesty and his noble attendants
knew well enough that the Jesuits did shamelessly
belie the Church of England, and that their brags
about Roman transubstantiation were equally false

TO THE READER. 5

and vain; but the German prince having recom-
mended to the perusal of those honourable persons
that followed the King, a manuscript, wherein (as
he said) was proved by authentic authors all that
had been advanced by the Jesuits, they thought
it fit to acquaint the Rev. Dr. Cosin with the
whole business, and entreat him that he would
vindicate the Church of England from the ca-
lumny, and plainly declare what is her avowed
doctrine and belief about the true and real pre-
sence of Christ in the blessed sacrament. Here-
upon our worthy doctor, who was ever ready and
zealous to do good, especially when it might
benefit the Church of God, fell presently to work,
and writ this excellent treatise as an answer to
the prince’s manuscript, that if those worthy
persons pleased, they might repay his highness’s
kindness in kind. Yet notwithstanding the soli-
citations of those that occasioned it, and of others
that had perused it, he would not yield to have it
made public until a few months before he died,
because, having composed it for particular friends,
he thought it sufficient that it had been useful to
them. But the controversy about the presence
of Christ in the eucharist being of late years
resumed with much vigour, and even now famous
by the learned and eloquent disputes of M. Claude,
minister of the reformed Church in Paris, and
M. Arnold, doctor of Sorbonne, and others, who,

6 TO THE READER.

moved by their example, have entered the lists;
the reiterated and more earnest importunities of
his friends obtained at last his consent for the
publication of this work, and the rather because
he thought that the error constantly maintained
by the famous doctor of Sorbonne was, by a
lucky anticipation, clearly and strongly confuted
throughout this book; for whatever the fathers
have said about the true and real presence of the
body and blood of Christ in the sacrament, that
stout Roman champion applies to his transub-
stantiation, and then crows over his adversaries,
supposing that. he hath utterly overthrown the
Protestants’ cause; whereas there is such a wide
difference as may be called a great gulf fixed
betwixt the true or real presence of Christ in the
Lord’s supper and the transubstantiation of the
bread and wine into his body and blood. This
last is such a prodigy as is neither taught by
Scripture nor possible to be apprehended by faith ;
it is repugnant to right reason, and contrary to
sense, and is no where to be found in ancient
writers. But the other is agreeable to Scripture
and to the analogy of faith; it is not against
reason, although, being spiritual, it cannot be
perceived by our bodily senses; and it is backed
by the constant and unanimous doctrine of the
holy fathers. For it makes nothing against it
that sometimes the same fathers do speak of the

TO THE READER. 7

bread and wine of the holy eucharist as of the
very body and blood of Christ; it being a manner
of speech very proper and usual in speaking of
sacraments, to give to the sign the name of the
thing signified. And, moreover, they explain
themselves in other places, when they frequently
enough call the sacramental bread and wine types,
symbols, figures, and signs of the body and blood
of Christ, thereby declaring openly for us against
the maintainers of transubstantiation. For we
may safely, without any prejudice to our tenet,
use those expressions of the ancients which the
papists think to be most favourable to them,
taking them in a sacramental sense, as they ought
to be; whereas the last mentioned, that are
against them, none can use, but by so doing he
necessarily destroys the whole contrivance of
transubstantiation, it being altogether inconsistent
to say the bread is substantially changed into the
body of Christ, and the bread is a figure, a sign,
and a representation of the body of Christ; for
what hath lost its being can in no wise signify or
represent any other thing; neither was ever any
thing said to represent and be the figure and sign
of itself. But this is more at large treated of in
the book itself.

Now having given an account of the occasion
of writing and publishing this discourse, perhaps
the reader will expect that I should say something

8 TO THE READER.

of its excellent author: but should I now under-
take to speak but of the most memorable things
that concern this great man, my thoughts would
be overwhelmed with their multitude, and I must
be injurious both to him and my readers, being
confined within the narrow limits of a preface.
But what cannot be done here, may be done some-
where else, God willing. This only I would not
have the reader to be ignorant of, that this learned
man and (as appears by this) constant professor
and defender of the Protestant religion, was one
of those who was most vehemently accused of
popery by the Presbyterians before the late wars,
and for that reason bitterly persecuted by them,
and forced to forsake his country; whereby he
secured himself from the violence of their hands,
but not of their tongues, for still the good men
kept up the noise of their clamorous accusation,
even while he was writing this most substantial
treatise against transubstantiation.

JOHN DUREL.*

[* Not subscribed to the Latin preface. }

THE HISTORY

OF

TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

CHAPTER I.

1. The real, that is, true and not imaginary presence of
Christ in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is proved
by Scripture. 2. and 8. Yet this favours not the tenet of
transubstantiation, being it is not to be understood grossly
and carnally, but spiritually and sacramentally. 4. The
nature and use of the sacraments. 5. By means of the
elements of bread and wine, Christ himself is spiritually
eaten by the faithful in the sacrament. 6. The eating
and presence being spiritual are not destructive of the
truth and substance of the thing. 7. The manner of
presence is unsearchable, and ought not to be presumptu-
ously defined.

1. THosE words which our blessed Saviour used
in the institution of the blessed sacrament of the
eucharist, “‘ This is my body, which is given for
you; this is my blood, which is shed for you, for
the remission of sins,”* are held and acknow-
ledged by the universal Church to be most true

* Matt. xxvi. 26; Luke xxii. 19.
B2

10. HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

and infallible: and if any one dares oppose them,
or call in question Christ’s veracity, or the truth
of his words, or refuse to yield his sincere assent
to them, except he be allowed to make a mere
figment or a bare figure of them,* we cannot,
and ought not, either excuse or suffer him in our
churches; for we must embrace and hold for an
undoubted truth whatever is taught by divine
Scripture. And therefore we can as little doubt
of what Christ saith, ‘* My flesh is meat indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed ;”’ + which, accord-
ing to St. Paul, are both given to us by the
consecrated elements. For he calls the bread
“‘ the communion of Christ’s body,’ and the cup
** the communion of his blood.” ¢

2. Hence it is most evident that the bread
and wine (which, according to St. Paul, are the
elements of the holy eucharist) are neither changed
as to their substance, nor vanished, nor reduced
to nothing; but are solemnly consecrated by the
words of Christ, that by them his blessed body
and blood may be communicated to us.

3. And further, it appears from the same
words, that the expression of Christ and the
apostle is to be understood in a sacramental and

* As G. Calixtus writes in some place of his learned
exercitations ; and before him Chemuitius, in Exam, Con.
Trid. atque in Locis Theol.

+ John vi. 55. | J 1 Cors-x. 16.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 1]

mystic sense; and that no gross and carnal pre-
sence of body and blood can be maintained by
them.

4. And though the word sacrament be no
where used in Scripture to signify the blessed
eucharist, yet the Christian Church, ever since
its primitive ages, hath given it that name, and
always called the presence of Christ’s body and
blood therein mystic and sacramental. Now a
sacramental expression doth, without any incon-
venience, give to the sign the name of the thing
signified.* And such is as well the usual way of
speaking, as the nature of sacraments; that not
only the names, but even the properties and
effects of what they represent and exhibit, are -
given to the outward elements. Hence (as I said
before) the bread is as clearly as positively called
by the apostle, “ the communion of the body of
Christ.”

5. This also seems very plain, that our blessed
Saviour’s design was not so much to teach what
the elements of bread and wine are by nature and
substance, as what is their use and office and
signification in this mystery. For the body and

* Exod. xii. 21: [‘‘ Take you a lamb according to your
families, and kill the passover.”| 1 Cor. x. 3,4: [‘ And
did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink
the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” ]

-

12. HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

blood of our Saviour are not only fitly repre-
sented by the elements, but also by virtue of his
institution really offered to all by them, and so
eaten by the faithful mystically and sacramentally ;
whence it is, that “ He truly is and abides in us,
and we in Him.’’*

6. This is the spiritual (and yet no less true
and undoubted than if it were corporal) eating of
Christ’s flesh; not indeed simply as it is flesh,
without any other respect (for so it is not given,
neither would it profit us); but as it is crucified,
and given for the redemption of the world.t
Neither doth it hinder the truth and substance of
the thing, that this eating of Christ’s body is
spiritual, and that by it the souls of the faithful,
and not their stomachs, are fed by the operation
of the Holy Ghost: for this none can deny, but
they who being strangers to the Spirit and the
divine virtue, can savour only carnal things, and
to whom what is spiritual and sacramental is the
same as if a mere nothing.

7. As to the manner of the presence of the
body and blood of our Lord in the blessed sacra-
ment, we that are Protestant and reformed ac- —
cording to the ancient Catholic Church, do not
search into the manner of it with perplexing
inquiries; but, after the example of the primitive

* John vi. 56. + Matt. xxvi. 26.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 13

and purest Church of Christ, we leave it to the
power and wisdom of our Lord, yielding a full
and unfeigned assent to his words. Had the
Romish maintainers of transubstantiation done
the same, they would not have determined and
decreed, and then imposed as an article of faith *
absolutely necessary to salvation, a manner of
presence newly by them invented, under pain of
the most direful curse; and there would have
been in the Church less wrangling, and more
peace and unity than now is.

[* ‘As in the council of Trent.” Lat.]

14 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

CHAPTER II.

1. 2. and 3. sq. The unanimous consent of all Protestants
with the Church of England in maintaining a real, that
is, true, but not a carnal presence of Christ in the blessed
sacrament, proved by public confessions and the best of
authorities.

1. So then none of the Protestant Churches doubt
of the real (that is, true and not imaginary)
presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacra-
ment; and there appears no reason why any man
should suspect their common confession of either
fraud or error, as though in this particular they
had in the least departed from the Catholic faith.

2. For it is easy to produce the consent of
reformed Churches and authors, whereby it will
clearly appear (to them that are not wilfully
blind) that they all zealously maintain and profess
this truth, without forsaking in any wise the true
Catholic faith in this matter.

3. I begin with the Church of England;
wherein they that are in holy orders are bound |
by a law and canon, “ Never to teach any thing
to the people, to be by them believed in matters
of religion, but what agrees with the doctrine of —
the Old and New Testament, and what the Ca-
tholic fathers and ancient prelates have gathered

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 15

and inferred out of it, under pain of excommuni-
cation if they transgress, troubling the people
with contrary doctrine.”* It teacheth, therefore,
“ that in the blessed sacrament the body of Christ
is given, taken, and eaten; so that to the worthy
receivers the consecrated and broken bread is the
communication of the body of Christ, and likewise
the consecrated cup the communication of His
blood. But that the wicked, and they that
approach unworthily the sacrament of so sacred
a thing, eat and drink their own damnation, in
that they become guilty of the body and blood of
Christ.”+ And the same Church, in a solemn
prayer before the consecration, prays thus

** Grant us, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh -
of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His
blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean
by His body, and our souls washed through His
most precious blood; and that we may evermore
dwell in Him, and He in us.”{ The priest also,
blessing or consecrating the bread and wine, saith
thus: ‘‘ Hear us, O merciful Father, we most
humbly beseech Thee, and grant that we receiving
these Thy creatures of bread and wine, according
to Thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy insti-

* In the book of Canons published by authority, 1571.
Of preaching.

+ Articles of Religion, 1562.

t Communion Service.

16- HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

tution, in remembrance of His death and passion,
may be partakers of His most blessed body and
blood. Who in the same night that He was be-
trayed took bread, and when He had given thanks,
He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, saying,
Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for
you; do this in remembrance of Me. Likewise
after supper He took the cup, and when He had
given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, Drink
ye all of this; for this is My blood of the new
testament, which is shed for you and for many,
for the remission of sins: do this as oft as ye shall
drink it in remembrance of Me.” The same,
when he gives the sacrament to the people kneel-
ing, giving the bread, saith, “* The body of our
Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee,
preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.”
Likewise when he gives the cup, he saith, “‘ The
blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed
for thee, preserve thy body and soul to everlasting
life.” Afterwards, when the communion is done,
follows a thanksgiving: “ Almighty and everliving
God, we most heartily thank Thee for that Thou
dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received |
these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of
the most precious body and blood of Thy Son our
Saviour Jesus Christ ;” with the hymn, “ Glory
be to God on high,’ &c. Also in the public
authorised Catechism of our Church, appointed to

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 17

be learned of all, it is answered to the question
concerning the inward part of the sacrament, that
* It is the body and blood of Christ, which are
verily and indeed taken and received by the faith-
ful in the Lord’s supper.”’* And in the apology
for this Church, writ by that worthy and reverend
prelate, Jewel, bishop of Salisbury, it is expressly
affirmed, “ That to the faithful is truly given in
the sacrament the body and blood of our Lord,
the life-giving flesh of the Son of God, which
quickens our souls, the bread that came from
heaven, the food of immortality, grace, and truth,
and life: and that it is the communion of the body
and blood of Christ, that we may abide in Him,
and He in us; and that we may be ascertained
that the flesh and blood of Christ is the food of
our souls, as bread and wine is of our bodies.” +
4. A while before the writing of this apology
came forth the diallactic of the famous Dr. Poinet,
bishop of Winchester,{ concerning the truth,

* Church Catechism.

[+ Diserteque pronunciamus in ecena credentibus vere
exhiberi corpus et sanguinem Domini, carnem Filii Dei,
vivificantem animas nostras, cibum superne venientem,
immortalitatis alimoniam, gratiam, veritatem, vitam. Eam-
que communionem esse corporis et sanguinis Christi, cujus
participatione vivificamur, vegetamur et pascimur ad im-
mortalitatem, et per quam conjungimur, unimur et incor-
poramur Christo, ut nos in illo maneamus, et ille in nobis. ]

{t Diallacticon viri boni et litterati de veritate, natura,

18 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

nature, and substance of the body and blood of
Christ in the blessed sacrament, writ on purpose
to explain and manifest the faith and doctrine of
the Church of England in that point. In the first
place it shews “ that the holy eucharist is not
only the figure, but also contains in itself the
truth, nature, and substance of the body of our
blessed Saviour; and that those words nature
and substance ought not to be rejected, because
the fathers used them in speaking of that mys-
tery.’* Secondly, he inquires, ‘‘ Whether those
expressions, truth, nature, and substance, were
used in this mystery by the ancients in their com-
mon acceptation, or in a sense more particular
and proper to the sacraments: because we must
not. only observe what words they used, but also
what they meant to signify and to teach by
them.”+ And though, with the fathers, he acknow-

atque substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi in eucharistia.
1576. Reprinted [by Ed. Pelling] in 1688. ]

[* Primum ostendam veritatem corporis Christi in eu-
charistia dari fidelibus, nec has voces naturam atque sub-
stantiam fugiendas esse; sed veteres de hoc sacramento
disserentes ita loquutos esse. p.3. ed. 1688. |

[+ Utrum voces ill, veritas, natura, substantia, com-
muni more in hoe negotio debeant intelligi, an peculiari et
sacramentis magis accommodata ratione. Breviter, utrum
homonymia vocum istarum aliqua subsit an non. Neque
enim observandum est solum quibus verbis olim patres
loquuti, sed quid etiam sibi volebant ita loquentes. p. 14. ]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 19

ledged a difference betwixt the body of Christ
in its natural form of a human body and that
mystic body present in the sacrament, yet he
chose rather to put that difference in the manner
of presence and exhibition than in the subject
itself, that is, the real body and blood of our
Saviour; being it is most certain, that no other
body is given to the faithful in the sacrament than
that which was by Christ given to death for their
redemption. Lastly, he affirms, “ according to
the unanimous consent of the fathers, that this
matter must be understood in a spiritual sense,
banishing all grosser and more carnal thoughts.”’*

5. To Bishop Poinet succeeded in the same
see the Right Reverend Doctors T. Bilson and _
L. Andrews, prelates both of them throughly
learned, and great defenders of the primitive faith ;
who made it most evident, by their printed writ-
ings, that the faith and doctrine of the Church of
England is in all things agreeable to the holy

[* Satis igitur constat, aliter intelligendum Christi cor-
pus in sacramento, aliter quod in aliquo loco cceli esse ne-
cessarium est. p. 23; see also pp. 25, 28, 30, 50.—Docui
de Christi carne edenda spiritualem ab illis [sc. patribus]
intelligentiam requiri, et carnalem omnem cogitationem ab-
legari. p. 72.—Veritatem, naturam, et virtutem veri corporis
Domini nostri se in illo pane sumere credebant. p. 74.—
Ex his et aliis multis locis patet quod eucharistia quantum

ad sacramenti naturam attinet vere corpus et sanguis est
Christi, p.77.]

20 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Scriptures, and the divinity of the ancient fathers.
And as to what regards this mystery, the first
treats of it in his answer to the apology of Car-
dinal Alan,* and the last in his answer to the
apology of Cardinal Bellarmine; where you may
find things worthy to be read and noted, as fol-
lows: “ Christ said, This is my body: in this, the
object, we are agreed with you; the manner only
is controverted. We hold by a firm belief that it
is the body of Christ ; of the manner how it comes
to be so, there is not a word in the Gospel; and
because the Scripture is silent in this, we justly
disown it to be a matter of faith. We may, in-
deed, rank it among tenets of the school, but by
no means among the articles of our Christian
belief. We like well of what Durandus is reported
to have said: ‘ We hear the word, and feel the
motion ; we know not the manner, and yet believe
the presence :’ for we believe a real presence, no
less than you do. We dare not be so bold as
presumptuously to define any thing concerning
the manner of a true presence; or rather, we do
not so much as trouble ourselves with being in-
quisitive about it; no more than in baptism, how

the blood of Christ washeth us; or in the incar-—
nation of our Redeemer, how the divine and
human nature were united together: we put it in
the number of sacred things or sacrifices (the

[* Bilson’s Christian Subjection, p. 657, sq. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,. 91

eucharist itself being a sacred mystery), whereof
the remnants ought to be consumed with fire,
that is (as the fathers elegantly have it), adored
by faith, but not searched by reason.”*

6. To the same sense speaks Is. Casaubon, in
the epistle he wrote by order from King James to
Cardinal Perron.t So doth also Hooker, in his
Kcclesiastical Polity ;{ John bishop of Rochester,
in his book of the Power of the Pope ;§ R. Mount-

{* Dixit Christus, hoc est corpus meum; non, hoc medo
hoe est corpus meum. Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto
convenit; de modo lis est omnis. De hoc est, fide firma
tenemus quod sit ; de hoc modo est (nempe transubstantiato
in corpus pane), de modo quo fiat ut sit; per sive in, sive
con, sive sub, sive trans, nullum inibi verbum est. Et quia -
verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul. Inter
scita schole fortasse, inter fidei articulos\non ponimus.
Quod dixisse olim fertur Durandus neutiquam displicet
[Neander, Synop. Chron., p. 203]: Verbum audimus,
motum sentimus, modum nescimus, presentiam credimus.
Presentiam (inquam) credimus, nec minus quam vos,
veram. De modo presentiz nil temere definimus: addo
nec anxie inquirimus ; non magis quam in Christi incarna-
tione, quomodo nature divine humana in eandem hypo-
stasin uniatur. Inter mysteria ducimus (et quidem myste-
rium est eucharistia ipsa), cujus, quod reliquum est, debet
igne absumi; id est, ut eleganter, imprimis patres, fide
adorari, non ratione discuti.|—Andrews, Resp. ad Apolo-
giam Card. Bellarmini, ch. i. p. 11.

+ Casaub. Epist. [p. 925. ed. 1656.] { Book v. § 67.

[§ Buckeridge De Potestate Pape, in] preef. ad lect.

22, HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

ague, bishop of Norwich, against Bullinger ; *
James primate of Armagh, in his. answer to the
Irish Jesuit ;+ Francis bishop of Ely, and William
Laud archbishop of Canterbury, in their answer
to Fisher ;{ John Overall, bishop of Norwich;§
and many others in the Church of England, who
never departed from the faith and doctrine of the
ancient Catholic fathers, which is by law esta-
blished, and with great care and veneration re-
ceived and preserved in our Church.

7. To these also we may justly add that
famous prelate, Antonio de Dominis, archbishop
of Spalato, a man well versed in the sacred
writings, and the records of antiquity; who,
having left Italy (when he could no longer remain
in it either with quiet or safety), by the advice
of his intimate friend, Paulus Venetus, took
sanctuary under the protection of King James
of blessed memory, in the bosom of the Church
of England, which he did faithfully follow in all
points and articles of religion. But being daily
vexed with many affronts and injuries, and wearied

* Montac. in Antidiatrib., Art. 13.

[+ Usher’s Controversy with a Jesuit, ch. iii. |

[t White’s Reply to Fisher, p. 179, 390. Laud against
Fisher, p. 246, ed. 1839.]

§ Ina manuscript shortly to be printed. [Never printed,
except it be the same, or extracts from it, as printed by
Nichols in his edition of the Common Prayer. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 23

by the unjust persecutions of some sour and over-
rigid men, who bitterly declaimed every where
against his life and actions, he at last resolved to
return into Italy with a safe conduct. Before he
departed, he was, by order from the king, ques-
tioned by some commissionated bishops what he
thought of the religion and Church of England,
which for so many years he had owned and
obeyed, and what he would say of it in the
Roman court? To this query he gave in writing
this memorable answer: “ I am resolved, even
with the danger of my life, to profess before the
pope himself, that the Church of England is a
true and orthodox Church of Christ.”’ This he
not only promised, but faithfully performed; for
though, soon after his departure, there came a
book out of the Low Countries, falsely bearing
his name, by whose title many were deceived
even among the English, and thereby moved to
tax him with apostacy, and of being another
Ecebolius;* yet when he came to Rome (where

[* One of the persons commissioned to examine him
(which was in itself a strange proceeding) was Bishop
Neile, Cosin’s patron, who wrote an account of the exa-
mination, and published it under the title of Alter Ecebo-
lius, or M. Ant. de Dominis’ Shiftings in Religion, 1624.
A particular, but unfavourable, account of De Dominis will
be found in Fuller’s Church History, to which I have
added information from some MS. papers in my edition. |

24 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

he was most kindly entertained in the palace of
Pope Gregory XV., who formerly had been his
fellow-student), he could never be persuaded by
the Jesuits and others, who daily thronged upon
him, neither to subscribe the new-devised tenets
of the Council of Trent, or to retract those or-
thodox books which he had printed in England
and Germany, or to renounce the communion of
the Church of England, in whose defence he
constantly persisted to the very last. But pre-
sently after the decease of Pope Gregory, he was
imprisoned by the Jesuits and inquisitors in Castle
St. Angelo, where, by being barbarously used
and almost starved, he soon got a mortal sickness,
and died in a few days, though not without sus-
picion of being poisoned. The day following, his
corpse was, by the sentence of the Inquisition,
tied to an infamous stake, and there burnt to
ashes, for no other reason but that he refused to
make abjuration of the religion of the Church of
England, and subscribe some of the lately made
decrees of Trent, which were pressed upon him
as canons of the Catholic faith. I have taken
occasion to insert this narration, perhaps not
known to many, to make it appear that this
reverend prelate, who did great service to the
Church of God, may justly (as I said before) be
reckoned amongst the writers of the Church of
England. —

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 95

Let us hear, therefore, what he taught and
writ when he was in England, in his books De
Repub. Eccl. v. 6. § xx. “ For a thousand years
together,” saith he, “ the holy Catholic Church,
content with a sober knowledge of divine mysteries,
believed soberly, and safely did teach, that in the
sacrament duly consecrated, the faithful did own,
receive, and eat the body and blood of Christ,
which by the sacred bread and wine are given to
them; but as to the particular manner how that
precious body and blood is offered and given by
that mysterious sacrament, the Church did humbly
and religiously acknowledge her ignorance: the
real thing, with its effects, she joyfully owned and
received, but meekly and devoutly abstained from
inquiring into the manner.” Item (§ lxxiii.):
*¢ The true and real body of Christ is most certainly
and undoubtedly given in the holy sacrament, yet
not carnally, but spiritually.” Again (§ clxix.) :
** I doubt not but all they that believe the Gospel
will acknowledge, that in the holy communion we
receive the true nature of the flesh of Christ, real
and substantial. We all teach that the body of
Christ is present as to its reality and nature; but
a carnal and corporal manner of presence we
reject, with St. Bernard and all the fathers.” And
in Appen. ad Ambrosium (§ vii.): “ I know and
acknowledge that with the bread still remaining
bread, the true and real body of Christ is given,

c

26 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

yet not corporally ; I assent in the thing, but not in
the manner: therefore, though there is a change in
the bread, when it brings into the souls of worthy
communicants the true body of Christ, which is
the substance of the sacrament, yet it doth not
follow that the bread loseth its own, to become
the substance of the body of Christ,’’* &c. These,

[* Per mille profecto annos Ecclesia sancta Catholica,
sobria divinorum mysteriorum cognitione contenta, et pie
credidit et tuto docuit, in eucharistia legitime consecrata
fideles corpus et sanguinem Christi agnoscere et recipere
ac manducare; ac in illo sacro pane sacroque vino corpus
et sanguinem Christi mirabiliter exhiberi: modum vero
particularem, pie, humiliter, et religiose ignorare voluit,
quo Christi corpus et sanguis in sacris hisce mysteriis et
sacramentis exhibetur. De Repub. Eccl. II. p. 79. Lond.
1620.—Vere enim, imo verissime, in eucharistia exhibetur
ipsum verum et reale corpus Christi, sed spiritualiter, non
corporaliter. Jb. p. 162.—Ipsam veram naturam Christi
carnis realem et substantialem in sacra communione nos
recipere, omnes evangelio credentes fatebuntur non dubito.
— Dicamus omnes, in eucharistia carnalem et corporalem
Christi preesentiam adesse quoad rem et naturam: negamus
etiam pariter omnes, cum Bernardo et omnibus patribus,
quoad modum carnaliter et corporaliter Christum non adesse,
sed spiritualiter. Jb. p. 254.—Scio enim et admitto, cum
pane manente pane, nobis verum et reale Christi corpus ex-'
hiberi, non tamen corporaliter. In re consentio, in modo
dissentio. Itaque etiamsi terminus ultimus mutationis aque
in baptismo sit gratia in anima et dona spiritualia ; ultimus
vero terminus mutationis panis sit secum adducere in ani-
mam digne communicantium, ipsum verum corpus Christi,

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. Q7

and much more to the same purpose, agreeable
to the religion and Church of England, and all
other Protestant Churches, you may find in the
same chapter, and in a treatise annexed to the
sixth book, against the famous Jesuit Suarez,
who had writ against King James, and the errors
(as he calls them) of the Church of England. In
the second chapter our prelate proves clearly,
according to its title, “That those points which
the Papists maintain against the Protestants be-
long not in any wise to the Catholic faith,—as
transubstantiation,’’ &c.

8. As for the opinion and belief of the German
Protestants, it will be known chiefly by the Au-
gustan Confession, presented to Charles V. by
the princes of the empire, and other great per-
sons.. For they teach, “ that not only the bread
and wine, but the body and blood of Christ is
truly given to the receivers:”* or, as it is in
another edition, “‘ that the body and blood of
Christ are truly present, and distributed to the

quod est substantia [sacramenti], non tamen sequitur ipsum
panem omittere suam substantiam, et induere substantiam
corporis Christi. Jb.,p. 172.|

* The Augustan Confession of the German Churches.
[a.D. 1530. De coena Domini docent, quod cum pane et
vino vere exhibeantur corpus et sanguis Christi vescentibus

in cena Domini. Confess. Augustana MDXL., p. 172, ed.
Oxford. |

28 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

communicants in the Lord’s supper; and refute
those that teach otherwise.”’* They also declare,
“that we must so use the sacraments, as to
believe and embrace by faith those things promised
which the sacraments offer and convey to us.” tT
Yet we may observe here, that faith makes not
those things present which are promised; for
faith (as it is well known) is more properly said
to take and apprehend, than to promise or per-
form: but the word and promise of God, on
which our faith is grounded (and not faith itself)
make that present which is promised; as it was
agreed at a conference at St. Germains{ betwixt
some Protestants and Papists. And therefore it
is unjustly laid to our charge by some in the
Church of Rome, as if we should believe that the
presence and participation of Christ in the sacra-
ment is effected merely by the power of faith.

9. The Saxon Confession, approved by other
churches, seems to be a repetition of the Augus-
tan. Therein we are taught, that “ sacraments

[* De ccoena Domini docent, quod corpus et sanguis
Christi vere adsint et distribuantur vescentibus in coena
Domini; et improbant secus docentes. Confess. Augus-
tana MDXXI. p. 126, ed. Oxford. |

[+ Itaque utendum est sacramentis ita ut accedat fides
que credat promissionibus, quee per sacramenta exhibentur
et ostenduntur. Confess. August. MDXL. p. 174. |

t Collat. S. Germ. 1561.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 29

are actions divinely instituted ; and that although
the same things or actions in common use have
nothing of the nature of sacraments, yet when |
used according to the divine institution, Christ is
truly and substantially present in the communion,
and His body and blood truly given to the re-
ceivers; so that He testifies that He is in them:
as St. Hilary saith, ‘These things taken and
received make us to be in Christ, and Christ to
be in us.’””*

10. The Confession of Wittemberg, which in
the year 1552 was propounded to the council of
Trent, is like unto this; for it teacheth, that “ the
true body and blood of Christ are given in the
holy communion; and refutes those that say,
that the bread and wine in the sacrament are
only signs of the absent body and blood of
Christ.” + |

* The Saxon Confession, art. xv. [p. 282. ed. Oxf.
Docentur etiam homines sacramenta esse actiones divi-
nitus institutas, et extra usum institutum res ipsas non
habere rationem sacramenti, sed in usu instituto in hac
communione vere et substantialiter adesse Christum, et
vere exhiberi sumentibus corpus et sanguinem Christi:
Christum testari quod sit in eis, et faciat eos sibi membra,
et quod abluerit eos sanguine suo: sicut et Hilarius inquit
(De Trin. viii.), Hee aecepta et hausta efficiunt ut et nos
in Christo, et Christus in nobis sit.|

+ The Confession of Wittemberg, in the Preface.
[Sentimus et docemus quod verum corpus Christi et verus

30 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

11. The Bohemian Confession also, that is of
them who, by contempt and out of ignorance, are
called by some Picards and Waldenses, presented
to King Ferdinand by the barons and nobles of
Bohemia, and approved by Luther and Melanc-
thon, and the famous university of Wittemberg,
teacheth, that “ we ought from the heart to be-
lieve and to profess by words, that the bread of
the Lord’s supper is the true body of Christ
which was given for us; and the wine, his true
blood that was shed for us: and that it is not
lawful for any person to bring or add any thing
of his own to the words of Christ, or in the least
to take any thing from them.’’* And when this
their confession was defamed and abused by some

sanguis ejus in eucharistia distribuatur; et refutamus
eos qui dicunt, panem et vinum eucharistie esse tantum
absentis corporis et sanguinis Christi signa. Art. de Eu-
charist. in init. |

* Confessio Bohemica [put forth a.p. 1535], art. xiii.
[p. 304, 5. ed. Augusti, 1827. Corde credendum ac ore
confitendum docent, panem ccenzee Dominic verum corpus
Christi esse, quod pro nobis traditum est, calicemque verum
sanguinem ejus, qui pro nobis in remissionem peccatorum
fusus est; ut Christus Dominus aperte dicit: Hoc est cor-
pus meum: hie est sanguis meus, &c. Docuit etiam, quod
his Christi verbis, quibus ipse panem corpus suum, et vinum
speciatim sanguinem suum esse pronuntiat, nemo de suo
quidquam affingat, admisceat, aut detrahat, sed simpli-
citer his Christi verbis, neque ad dexteram neque ad
sinistram declinando, credat. | .

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 31

of their adversaries, they answered, that “ they
would ever be ready to confute the calumniators,
and to make it appear, by strong arguments and a
stronger faith, that they never were, and, by God’s
grace, never would be, what their adversaries re-
presented them.”*

12. In the same manner, the conciliation of
the articles of the Lord’s supper, and the mutual
agreement betwixt the churches of the greater and
lesser Polonia in the synod of Sendomiris:+ “ We
hold together,”’ say they, “ the belief of the words
of Christ, as they have been rightly understood
by the fathers; or, to speak more plain, we be-
lieve and confess, that the substantial presence of
Christ is not only signified in the Lord’s supper,
but also that the body and blood of our Lord is’
truly offered and granted to worthy receivers, to-
gether with those sacred signs which convey to
us the thing signified, according to the nature of
sacraments. And lest the different ways of speak-
ing should breed any contention, we mutually
consent to subscribe that article concerning the
Lord’s supper which is in the confession of the

{* Hane [calumniam|] nostri jampridem refellerunt, ac
nunquam non refellere parati sunt, et multorum indubita-
bili fide ac firmis argumentis ostenderunt, se nunquam
quales eos adversarii faciunt fuisse, esse, nec, Deo volente,
futuros. Ib.|

{+ Held a.p. 1570. ]

32 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Churches of Saxony, which they sent to the
council of Trent; and we hold and acknowledge
it to be sound and pious.”’* Then they repeat
the whole article, mentioned and set down a little
before.

13. Luther was once of opinion that the
divines of Basil and Strasbourg did acknowledge
nothing in the Lord’s supper besides bread and
wine.t To him Bucer, in the name of all the rest,
did freely answer, “ that they all unanimously
did condemn that error; that neither they nor
the Switzers ever believed or taught any such
thing; that none could expressly be charged with
that error except the Anabaptists; and that he
also had once been persuaded, that Luther in his.

* Consensus Polonicus, near the beginning. [Quan-
tum ad infelix illud dissidium de ccena attinet, convenimus
in sententia verborum, ut illa orthodoxe intellecta est a
patribus.— Denique, ut expressius clariusque loquamur,
convenimus ut credamus et confiteamur substantialem pre-
sentiam Christi, non significari duntaxat, sed vere in coena
vescentibus representari, distribui et exhiberi, symbolis
adjectis ipsi rei minime nudis, secundum sacramentorum
naturam. Ne vero diversitas formularum loquendi con-
tentionem aliquam pariat, placuit, preter articulum qui est
insertus confessioni nostree, mutuo consensu adscribere ar-
ticulum Confessionis Saxonicarum ecclesiarum de coena Do-
mini missee ad Tridentinum Concilium anno 1551, quem
etiam pium agnoscimus et recipimus. Consensus Sendo-
miriensis, p. 256, ed. Augusti, 1827. ]

+ Confessio Theol. Argent. et Basil.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 33

writings attributed too much to the outward sym-
bols, and maintained a grosser union of Christ
with the bread than the Scriptures did allow; as
though Christ had been corporally present with
it, united into a natural substance with the bread ;
so that the wicked as well as the faithful were
made partakers of grace by receiving the element.
But that their own doctrine and belief concerning
that sacrament was, that the true body and blood
of Christ was truly presented, given, and received,
together with the visible signs of bread and wine,
by the operation of our Lord, and by virtue of His
institution, according to the plain sound and sense
of His words; and that not only Zuinglius and
(Ecolampadius had so taught, but they also, in
the public confessions of the Churches of the —
upper Germany, and other writings, confessed it :
so that the controversy was rather about the
manner of the presence or absence, than about
the presence or absence itself: all which Bu-
cer’s associates confirm after him. He also adds,
“that the magistrates in their churches had de-
nounced very severe punishments to any that
should deny the presence of the body and blood
of Christ in the Lord’s supper.” Bucerus did
also maintain this doctrine of the blessed sacra-
ment in presence of the Landgrave of Hesse and
Melancthon, confessing, “ that together with the
sacrament we truly and substantially receive the
c2

34 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

body of Christ.”” Also, “ that the bread and
wine are conferring signs, giving what they repre-
sent, so that together with them the body of
Christ is given and received.” And to these he
adds, “‘ that the body and bread are not united in
the mixture of their substance, but in that the
sacrament gives what it promiseth, that is, the
one is never without the other; and so they
agreeing on both parts, that the bread and wine
are not changed, he holds such a sacramental
union.”’ Luther having heard this, declared also
his opinion thus: ‘ that he did not locally include
the body and blood of Christ with the bread and
wine, and unite them together by any natural
connexion ; and that he did not make proper to
the sacraments that virtue whereby they brought
salvation to the receivers: but that he maintained
only a sacramental union betwixt the body of
Christ and the bread, and betwixt His blood and
the wine; and did teach, that the power of con-
firming our faith, which he attributed to the
sacraments, was not naturally inherent in the
outward signs, but proceeded from the. operation
of Christ, and was given by His Spirit, by His
words, and by the elements.” And finally, in —
this manner he spake to all that were present :
“If you believe and teach that in the Lord’s
supper the true body and blood of Christ is given
and received, and not the bread and wine only,

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 35

and that this giving and receiving is real, and not
imaginary, we. are agreed, and we own you for
dear brethren in the Lord.”* All this is set down

[* Hoe vero se omnes fassos esse—scripta D. Lutheri
et suorum nimium sacramentis tribuere, crassioremque
unionem Christi cum pane statuere quam qualem S. Scrip-
tura admittat.— Et quod scripserint intellectum verborum
Christi hune esse: Hoc est corpus meum substantialiter et
corporaliter, vel in pane adest corporaliter. Item, quod
sine ulla declaratione sacramenta tradantur esse canales
gratie divine. Talibus sermonibus de sacramentis papis-
ticum errorem in ecclesiam rursum introduci et confirmari ;
quo fascinati homines salutem sine ulla fide in externo
opere sacramenti collocant. p. 151.—Suam [sc. Buceri et
aliorum] fidem. et doctrinam de sacramento hance esse,
quod sentiant in eo, ex institutione et opere Domini, vere
(prout verba Domini sonant) verum suum corpus et verum
sanguinem cum visibilibus signis pane et vino exhiberi, dari
et sumi; prout hee antehac quoque in publicis ecclesiarum
superioris Germanie confessionibus et in aliis scriptis ex-
presse professi sumus. p. 652.— Universi et singuli suo
nomine confessi sumus, nos prorsus idem in omnibus sentire
et docere prout hee a Bucero recitata et declarata sint, nec
cuiquam apud nos concessum iri, ut docent vel dicunt, tan-
tum panem et vinum in s. coena adesse. Immo hance senten-
tiam in quibusdam civitatibus inter blasphemias relatam,
poenasque gravissimas in eos qui hee proponant constitutas
esse. p. 654.

| Zuinglius]| non vellet simpliciter abesse a ccena Domi-
num, aut inania corporis et sanguinis Domini omnino hic
symbola dispensari: ut ipse apud me [ Bucerum]| confessus
est.— Alibi diserte scribit, sacramenta auxilium opemque
adferre fidei.—His [sacramentis| remissionem peccatorum,

36 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

at large in the second tome of Luther’s works,
and in the English works of Bucer.

14. The next will be the Gallican Confession,
made at Paris in a national synod, and presented

communionem sui, et vitam eternam adfert et exhibet
[Christus]. p. 644. |

Sic enim scribit | colampadius] in novissimo dialogo
suo: Dissidium, inquit, magis est de modo presenti vel
absentiz, quam desipsa presentia vel absentia.—Bucer,
S. A., p. 644.

Adesse, exhiberi et sumi corpus Christi et sanguinem
cum pane et vino, idque vere et substantialiter. p. 665.

Credimus omnes et confitemur in sacra coena non solum
panem et vinum adesse et exhiberi, sed cum his signis ex-
hibitivis etiam corpus et sanguinem Domini. p. 659 et
p. 692.

Concedunt sacramentali unione panem esse corpus
Christi; hoe est, sentiunt porrecto pane, simul adesse et
vere exhiberi corpus Christi. p. 665.—Lutherum nunquam
aliud contendisse quam adesse et exhiberi corpus et san-
guinem Domini in eucharistia, modum autem presentize
non definivisse. Audivimus [inquit Lutherus]— quod vi-
delicet credatis et doceatis in s. coena verum corpus et
verum sanguinem Domini exhiberi et sumi, et non panem
et vinum tantum ; et quod exhibitio et perceptio hee vere
fiat et non imaginarie.—Cum itaque ita se res habeat,
probe inter nos convenit, vosque agnoscimus et recipimus
—ut fratres nostros in Domino. Jd. 655.

The whole subject is discussed at considerable length
in Bucer’s Scripta Anglicana, p. 611-704; but all the ori-
ginal passages cannot very easily be brought within the
compass of these notes. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 37

to King Charles [X.* at the conference of Poissy,
which speaks of the sacrament on this wise:
** Although Christ be in heaven, where He is to
remain until He come to judge the world, yet we
believe that by the secret and incomprehensible
virtue of His Spirit He feeds and vivifies us, by the
substance of His body and blood received by faith.
Now we say that this is done in a spiritual man-
ner; not that we belieye it to be a-fancy and
imagination, instead of a truth and real effect,
but rather because that mystery of our union with
Christ is of so sublime a nature, that itis as much
above the capacity of our senses as it is above the
order of nature.” Item: “ We believe that inthe
Lord’s supper God gives us really, that is, truly
and efficaciously, whatever is represented by the —
sacrament; with the signs we join the true pos-
session and fruition of the thing by them offered
to us; and so, that bread and wine, which are
given to us, become our spiritual nourishment, in
that they make it in some manner visible to us
that the flesh of Christ is our food, and his blood
our drink. Therefore those fanatics that reject
these signs and symbols are by us rejected; our
blessed Saviour having said, ‘ This is my body,’
and ‘This cup is my blood.’”+ This confession
hath been subscribed by the Church of Geneva.

[* a.p. 1561. ]
+ Art. xxxvi. [p. 221, ed. Augusti. Quamvis enim

38 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

. 15. The envoys from the French Churches
to Worms made a declaration concerning that
mystery, much after the same manner: “ We
confess,”’ say they, “ that in the Lord’s supper,
besides the benefits of Christ, the substance also
of the Son of Man, His true body, with His blood
shed for us, are not only figuratively signified by
types and symbols, as memorials of things absent,
but also truly and certainly presented, given, and
offered to be applied, by signs that are not bare

nunc sit | Christus] in ccelis, ibidem etiam mansurus donec
veniat mundum judicaturus; credimus tamen eum arcana
et incomprehensibili Spiritus sui virtute nos nutrire et
vivificare, sui corporis et sanguinis substantia per fidem
apprehensa. Dicimus autem hoe spiritualiter fieri, non ut
efficacie et veritatis loco, imaginationem aut cogitationem
supponamus ; sed potius quoniam hoc mysterium nostre
cum Christo coalitionis tam sublime est, ut omnes nostras
sensus totumque adeo ordinem nature superet.— Credi-
mus sicut antea dictum est; tam in ccena, quam in bap-
tismo, Deum nobis reipsa, id est, vere et efficaciter donare
quicquid ibi sacramentaliter figurat, ac proinde cum signis
conjungimus veram possessionem ac fruitionem ejus rel,
que ibi nobis affertur.—Dicimus itaque—panem illum et
vinum illud quod nobis in cena datur, vere nobis fieri
spirituale alimentum, quatenus videlicet, velut oculis nos- .
tris spectandum prebent carnem Christi nostrum cibum
esse, et ejusdem sanguinem nobis esse potum. Itaque
fanaticos illos omnes rejicimus, qui hee signa et symbola
repudiant, cum Christus Dominus noster pronuntiarit, Hoc
est corpus meum ; et Hoe poculum est sanguis meus. |

HISTORY OF PR RET AT TEA TION. 39

and destitute, but (on God’s part, in regard of His
offer and promise) always undoubtedly accom-
panied with what they signify, whether they be
offered to good or bad Christians.’’*

16. Now follows the Belgic Confession,f which
professeth it “to be most certain, that Christ
doth really effect in us what is figured by the
signs, although it be above the capacity of our
reason to understand which way, the operations
of the Holy Ghost being always occult and incom-
prehensible.” t

* Legat. Eccl. Gall. conf, 1557. [Fatemur in ccena
Domini non omnia modo Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam -
Filii Hominis substantiam, ipsam, inquam, veram carnem,
quam Verbum in perpetuam unitatem persone assumsit, in-
qua natus et passus, resurrexit et ascendit in ceelos, et
verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis, non signifi-
cari dumtaxat, aut symbolice, typice, vel figurate tanquam
absentis memoriam proponi, sed vere ac certe repreesentari,
exhiberi, et applicanda offerri adjunctis symbolis minime
nudis, sed quee, quod ad Deum ipsum attinet, promitten-
tem et offerentem semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunc-
tam habeant, sive fidelibus, sive infidelibus proponuntur.
Hospiniani Hist. Sacr. ii. p. 251, b. ed. 1602. ]

[+ First set forth by some Dutch pastors in 1561, and
subsequently confirmed in various synods, 1571-1581. |

[t Art. xxxv. p. 351. ed. Oxf., or p. 194. ed. Aug.
Omne id in nobis efficit [Christus] quodcumque sacris suis
signis nobis repreesentat; quamvis modus ipse mentis nos-
tre captum superet, nobisque sit incomprehensibilis, sicut
operatio Spiritus Dei occulta et incomprehensibilis est. |

40 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

17. The more ancient Confession of the Swit-
zers, made by common consent at Basil,* and
approved by all the Helvetic Protestant Churches,
hath it, “‘ that while the faithful eat the bread,
and drink the cup of the Lord, they, by the
operation of Christ working by the Holy Spirit,
receive the body and blood of our Lord, and
thereby are fed unto eternal life.” But, notwith-
standing that, they affirm that this food is spi-
ritual; yet they afterwards conclude, “ that by
spiritual food they understand not imaginary, but
the very body of Christ which was given for
us. 7

|* There are three Helvetic confessions ; but the history
of all of them is involved in considerable obscurity.

The 1st, sometimes called the Confession of Basil, some-
times the Mulhausian Confession, because it was com-
posed at Basil, by the Mulhausians, who were the earliest
of the Swiss people to embrace the Reformation, was writ-
ten by Oswald Myconius, the friend of Zuinglius, in 1532.

The 2d, drawn up at Basil 1536, and reprinted in 1581.

The 8d, which is far more comprehensive than the
other two, and was subscribed by all the Helvetic Churches
except those of Basil and Neufchatel, was published in
1566, and was chiefly drawn up by Bullinger, Myconius,
and Gryneus, in the first instance, afterwards remodelled
by Beza and Gualterus. |

[+ Conf. Helvet. prior. ch. xxii. p. 99. ed August.
Asserimus quod panis et vinum ex institutione Do-
mini symbola sint, quibus ab ipso Domino, per ecclesiz
ministerium, vera corporis et sanguinis ejus communicatio,

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 4]

18. And the later Confession of the Switzers,
writ and printed in 1566,* affirms as expressly
_ the true presence of Christ’s body in the eucha-
rist; thus: “ Outwardly the bread is offered by
the minister, and the words of Christ heard,
‘ Take, eat, this is My body; drink ye all of this,
this is My blood.’ Therefore the faithful receive
what Christ’s minister gives, and drink of the
Lord’s cup; and at the same time, by the power
of Christ working by the Holy Ghost, are fed by

non in periturum ventris cibum, sed in weterne vite ali-
moniam exhibeatur.—And so also in the Mulhausian Con-
fession, Art. vii.: In coena Domini—verum corpus et
verus sanguis Christi per ministrum ecclesie preefiguratur
et offertur. |

* Helvet. Conf. posterior. [p. 83. ed. Oxf., or 74. ed.
Aug. Foris offertur a ministro panis, et audiuntur voces
Domini: Accipite, edite, hoc est corpus meum ;—bibite e2:
hoc omnes, hic est sanguis meus. Ergo accipiunt fideles
quod datur a ministro Domini, et edunt panem Domini,
ac bibunt de poculo Domini. Intus interim, opera Christi
per Spiritum S., percipiunt etiam carnem et sanguinem
Domini, et pascuntur his in vitam eternam.—p. 86, 77.
Et tamen non est absens ecclesize sue celebranti coenam
Dominus. Sol absens a nobis in ceelo, nihilominus effica-
citer preesens est nobis ; quanto magis Sol justitize Christus,
corpore in ccelis absens nobis, preesens est nobis, non cor-
poraliter quidem, sed spiritualiter, per vivificam operati-
onem; et ut ipse se nobis praesentem futurum exposuit in
ultima ccena (Joan. xiv. xv. xvi.). Unde consequens est,
nos non habere ccenam sine Christo. |

42 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

the flesh and blood of our Lord unto eternal life,”
&c. Again; “ Christ is not absent from His
Church celebrating his holy supper. The sun in
heaven, being distant from us, is nevertheless pre-
sent by his efficacy ; how much more shall Christ,
the Sun of Righteousness, who is bodily in hea-
ven, absent from us, be spiritually present to us
by His life-giving virtue, and as He declared in His
last supper He would be present (John xiv. xv.
xvi.); whence it follows that we have no com-
munion without Christ.” Now to this Confes-
sion not only the reformed Switzers did subscribe,
but also the Churches of Hungary, Pannonia or
Transylvania, Poland, and Lithuania, which follow
neither the Augustan nor Bohemian Confessions.
It was subscribed also by the Churches of Scot-
land and Geneva.

19. Lastly; let us hear the renowned decla-
ration of the reformed Churches of Poland, made
in the assembly of Thorun, whereby they profess,
that as to what concerns the sacrament of the
eucharist, they assent to that opinion which in
the Augustan Confession, in the Bohemian, and
that of Sendomire, is confirmed by Scripture.* —
Then afterwards, in another declaration, they ex-
plain their own mind thus, saying: “1. That the
sacrament consisteth of earthly things, as bread

[* P. 413. ed. Augusti. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 43

and wine; and things heavenly, as the body and
blood of our Lord; both of which, though in a
different manner, yet most truly and really, are
given together at the same time—earthly things
in an earthly, corporal, and natural way ;_hea-
venly things in a mystic, spiritual, and heavenly
manner.’ 2. Hence they infer, “ that the bread
and wine are, and are said to be with truth, the
very body and blood of Christ, not substantially
indeed, that is not corporally, but sacramentally
and mystically, by virtue of the sacramental
union, which consisteth not in a bare significa-
tion or obligation only, but also in a real exhibi-
tion and communication of both parts, earthly
and heavenly, together at once, though in a dif-
ferent manner.” 3. In that sense they affirm
with the ancients, “ that the bread and wine are
changed into the body and blood of Christ, not in
nature and substance, but in use and efficacy; in
which respect the sacred elements are not called
what they are to sense, but what they are believed
and received by faith grounded on the promise.”
4. They deny “ to believe the signs to be bare,
inefficacious, and empty ; but rather such as truly
give what they seal and signify, being efficacious
instruments and most certain means whereby the
body and blood of Christ, and so Christ himself |
with all His benefits, is set forth and offered to all
communicants, but conferred and given to true

44 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

believers, and by them received as the saving and
vivifying food of their souls.”” 5. They deny not
“the true presence of the body and blood of
Christ in the Lord’s supper, but only the corporal
manner of His presence.” They believe “ a mys-
tical union betwixt Christ and us, and that not
imaginary, but most true, real, and efficacious.”
6. Thence they conclude, “ that not only the
virtue, efficacy, operation, or benefits of Christ
are communicated to us, but more especially the
very substance of His body and blood, so that He
abides in us and we in Him.’’*

* Declaratio Thoruniensis, [held at Thorun in 1645, with
the hope of uniting the Roman Catholic, Reformed, and
Lutheran Churches. The attempt, however, unhappily did
not succeed. Art. De Sacra Cena, p. 430.—§ 2. Constat hoc
sacramentum rebus terrenis, pane et vino; et cclestibus,
corpore et sanguine Domini; que diverso quidem modo,
utreeque tamen verissime, realissime ac preesentissime nobis
exhibentur; nempe terrene modo naturali, corporali et
terreno: ccelestes vero modo spirituali, mystico et ccelesti.
—4 3. Hinc etiam res terrene, panis et vinum, vere sunt et
dicuntur ipsum corpus et sanguis Christi, non quidem sub-
stantialiter aut corporaliter, sed sacramentaliter et mystice,
seu per et propter unionem sacramentalem; que non con-
sistit in nuda significatione, neque tantum in obsignatione,
sed etiam in conjuncta illa et simultanea rei terrenz et
coelestis, quamvis diversemoda, exhibitione et communi-
catione.

§ 4. Eodem sensu dixerunt veteres, et nos cum ipsis,
panem et vinum in corpus et sanguinem mutari, non quidem

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 45

20. Now because great is the fame of Calvin
(who subscribed the Augustan Confession and that
of the Switzers), let us hear what he writ and
believed concerning this sacred mystery. His
words in his Institutions and elsewhere are such,
so conformable to the style and mind of the
ancient fathers, that no Catholic Protestant would
wish to use any other. ‘I understand,”’ saith
he, “ what is to be understood by the words of
Christ, that He doth not only offer us the benefits
of His death and resurrection, but His very body
wherein He died and rose again. I assert that the
body of Christ is really (as the usual expression
is), that is truly, given to us in the sacrament, to

ipsa substantia et natura, sed usu et officio, in quo sacra -
heee symbola non tam id esse dicuntur, quod sensu percipi-
tur; quam id quod vi promissionis in iis intuetur et acceptat
fides.—§. 10. Nequaquam statuimus nuda, vacua, inania
signa, sed potius id quod significant, simul exhibentia,
tanquam certissima media et efficacia instrumenta per que
corpus et sanguis Christi, adeoque Christus ipse, cum om-
nibus suis beneficiis, singulis vescentibus exhibetur seu
offertur, credentibus vero confertur, donatur, et ab ipsis in
cibum anime salutarem et vivificarem acceptatur.

§. 11. Nequaquam etiam negamus veram corporis et
sanguinis Christi in coena preesentiam, sed tantum localem
et corporalem presentiz modum, et unionem cum elementis
substantialem: ipsam vero nobiscum presentiam sancte
credimus, et quidem non imaginariam, sed verissimam,
realissimam et efficacissimam. ;

§. 12. Unde et patet, non solum virtutem, efficaciam,

46 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

be the saving food of our souls.”* Also, in ano-
ther place; item, ‘‘ that word cannot lie, neither
can it mock us; and except one presumes to call
God a deceiver, he will never dare to say that the
symbols are empty, and that Christ is not in
them. Therefore, if by the breaking of the bread
our Saviour doth represent the participation of
His body, it is not to be doubted but that He truly
gives and confers it. If it be true that the visible
sign is given us to seal the gift of an invisible
thing, we must firmly believe that receiving the
signs of the body, we also certainly receive the _
body itself. Setting aside all absurdities, I do
willingly admit all those terms that can most
strongly express the true and substantial com-
munication of the body and blood of Christ
granted to the faithful with the symbols of the

operationem aut beneficia Christi nobis preesentari et com-
municari, sed imprimis ipsam substantiam corporis et san-
guinis Christi, seu ipsam illam victimam, que pro mundi
vita data est, et in cruce mactata, ut per fidelem hujus vic-
time communionem et cum Christo ipso unionem, conse~
quenter etiam meritorum et beneficiorum sacrificio ejus
partorum participes simus, et sicut ipse in nobis, ita nos in
ipso maneamus. |

* Comm. on 1 Cor. xi. 24. [Neque enim mortis tan-
tum ac resurrectionis sue beneficium nobis offert Christus,
sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est ac resurrexit. Concludo
realiter (ut vulgo loquuntur), hoc est vere, nobis in ccena
dari Christi corpus, ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutare. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 47

Lord’s supper; and that, not as if they received
only by the force of their imagination, or an act
of their minds, but really so as to be fed thereby
unto eternal life.’”* Again; “ we must therefore
confess that the inward substance of the sacra-
ment is joined with the visible signs; so that as
the bread is put into our hand, the body of Christ
is also given to us. This certainly, if there were
nothing else, should abundantly satisfy us that
we understand that Christ in His holy supper
gives us the true and proper substance of His
body and blood; that, it being wholly ours, we
may be made partakers of all His benefits and
graces.”+ Again; “ the Son of God offers daily

* Instit. book iv. ch. 17. [§ 10. Nisi enim quis fal-
lacem vocare Deum volet, inane ab ipso symbolum proponi
nunquam dicere audeat. Itaque si per fractionem panis
Dominus corporis sui participationem vere representat,
minime dubium esse debet quin vere prestet atque exhi-
beat.—Quod si verum est preberi nobis signum visibile, ad
obsignandam invisibilis rei donationem, accepto corporis
symbolo, non minus corpus etiam ipsum nobis dari certo
confidamur.—§ 19. Ceterum his absurditatibus sublatis,
quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque corporis
ac sanguinis Domini communicationem, que sub sacris
coenee symbolis fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libenter
recipio, atque ita ut non imaginatione dumtaxat aut mentis
intelligentia percipere, sed ut re ipsa frui in alimentum
vite eterne intelliguntur. |

+ Treatise of the Lord’s Supper. [Itaque fatendum est,
si vera sit repreesentatio quam adhibet Deus in ccena, sub-

48 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

_to us in the holy sacrament the same body which
He once offered in sacrifice to His Father, that it
may be our spiritual food.” In these he asserts,
as clearly as any one can, the true, real, and sub-
stantial presence and communication of the body
of Christ; but how, he undertakes not to deter-
mine. “ If any one,’’* saith he, “ ask me con-
cerning the manner, I will not be ashamed to
confess that it.is a secret too high for my reason
to comprehend, or my tongue to express; or, to

stantiam interiorem sacramenti visibilibus signis conjunc-
tam esse; et quemadmodum panis in manu distribuitur, ita
corpus Christi, ut ejus participes simus, nobis communicari.
Hoe certe etiamsi nihil aliud esset, nobis abunde satisfacere
deberet, quum intelligimus Christum nobis in cena veram
propriamque corporis et sanguinis sui substantiam [nobis |
donare, ut pleno jure ipsum possideamus, et possidendo in
omnem bonorum suorum societatem vocemur. Calvini
Tract. Theol. p. 3. ed. 1667. |

* Instit. book iv. ch. 17. § 32. [Porro de modo si
quis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse
arcanum quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enar-
rari verbis queat ; atque, ut apertius dicam, experior magis
quam intelligam. Itaque veritatem Dei, in qua acquiescere
tuto licet, hic sine controversia amplector. Pronuntiat ille
carnem suam esse anime mee cibum, sanguinem esse
potum, . Talibus alimentis animam illi meam pascendam
offero. In sacra sua ccena jubet me, sub symbolis panis ac
vini, corpus ac sanguinem suum sumere, manducare ac
bibere: nihil dubito quin et ipse vere porrigat, et ego
recipiam. | :

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 49

speak more properly, I rather feel than understand
it: therefore, without disputing, I embrace the
truth of God, and confidently repose on it. He
declares that His flesh is the food, and His blood
the drink of my soul; and my soul I offer to Him
to be fed by such nourishment. He bids me take,
eat, and drink His body and blood, which in His
holy supper He offers me under the symbols of
bread and wine: I make no scruple but He doth
reach them to me, and I receive them.” All
these are Calvin’s own words.*

21. I was the more willing to be long in tran-
scribing these things at large, out of public con-
fessions of Churches and the best of authors, that -
it might the better appear how injuriously Pro-
testant divines are calumniated by others unac-
quainted with their opinions, as though by these
words, spiritually and sacramentally, they did not
acknowledge a true and well-understood real pre-
sence and communication of the body and blood
of Christ in the blessed sacrament; whereas, on
the contrary, they do professedly own it in terms
as express as any can be used.

[* See a still more remarkable confession of the real
presence by Farellus, Calvin, and Viretus, subscribed by
Bucer and Capito, in Calvin’s Epistole, p. 575, 588, ed.
1576.]

50 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

CHAPTER III.

1. What the Papists do understand by Christ being spi-
ritually present in the sacrament. 2. What St. Bernard
understood by it. 3. What the Protestants. 4. Faith
doth not cause, but suppose the presence of Christ. 5.
The union betwixt the body of Christ and the bread is
sacramental.

1. Havre now, by what I have said, put it out of
doubt that the Protestants believe a spiritual and
true presence of Christ in the sacrament, which is
the reason that, according to the example of the
fathers, they use so frequently the term spiritual
in this subject,—it may not be amiss to consider,
in the next place, how the Roman Church under-
stands that same word. Now they make it to
signify “ that Christ is not present in the sacra-
ment either after that manner which is natural to
corporal things, or that wherein His own body
subsists in heaven, but according to the manner
of existence proper to spirits whole and entire, in
each part of the host ; and though by Himself He
be neither seen, touched, nor moved, yet in
respect of the species or accidents joined with
Him, He may be said to be seen, touched, and
moved; and so the accidents being moved, the
body of Christ is truly moved accidentally, as the

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 51

soul truly changeth place with the body; so that
we truly and properly say, that the body of Christ
is removed, lifted up, and set down, put on the
paten or on the altar, and carried from hand to
mouth, and from the mouth to the stomach: as
Berengarius was forced to acknowledge in the
Roman council under Pope Nicholas, that the
body of Christ was sensually touched by the
hands, and broken and chewed by the teeth of
the priest.”* But all this, and much more to the
same effect, was never delivered to us either by
holy Scripture or the ancient fathers. And if

* Bellarminus de Eucharistia, i. 2. § 2.sq. [Non di-
‘eemus, corpus Christi in eucharistia esse sensibile, visibile,
tangibile, extensum, licet tale sit in coelo. Non habet
Christus in eucharistia modum existendi corporum, sed
potius spirituum, cum sit totus in qualibet parte [ hostize ].—
Quamvis corpus Christi in eucharistia per se non videatur,
nec tangatur, nec moveatur ; tamen ratione specierum, sive
accidentium, quibus conjunctum est, potest dici, videri,
tangeri, moveri, &c.—Verba que significant motum loca-
lem vere et proprie dicuntur de corpore Christi in eucha-
ristia existente, ratione specierum, licet per accidens, non
per se.—Ut motis speciebus, vere moveatur corpus Christi,
quamvis per accidens ; quomodo anima nostra vere mutat
locum, cum corpus mutat locum. Itaque vere et proprie di-
cemus, Christi corpus in eucharistia attolli, deponi, deferri,
collocari in altari vel in pixide, transferri a manu ad 0s, et
ab ore ad stomachum.— Denique, in concilio Romano sub
Nicolao II. compulsus est Berengarius confiteri, corpus
sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi et frangi. |

52 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

- souls or spirits could be present, as here Bellar-
mine teacheth, yet it would be absurd to say that
bodies could be so likewise, it being inconsistent
with their nature.

2. Indeed, Bellarmine confesseth with St. Ber-
nard,* ‘ that Christ in the sacrament is not given
to us carnally, but spiritually;’’ and would to God
he had rested here, and not outgone the holy
Scriptures and the doctrine of the fathers. For
endeavouring, with Pope Innocent III. and the
council of Trent, to determine the manner of the
presence and manducation of Christ’s body with
more nicety than was fitting, he thereby foolishly
overthrew all that he had wisely said before, de-
nied what he had affirmed, and opposed his own
opinion. “ His fear was, lest his adversaries
should apply that word spiritually, not so much
to express the manner of presence, as to exclude
the very substance of the body and blood of
Christ; therefore,” saith he, “ upon that account
it is not safe to use too much that of St. Bernard,
the body of Christ is not corporally in the sacra-
ment, without adding presently the above-men-
tioned explanation.”’*} How much do we comply

* St. Bern. Serm. in Festum 8. Martini. [p. 151.
Eadem caro nobis, sed spiritualiter, utique non carnaliter
exhibeatur. Ed. Col. Ag. 1641.]

[+ Itaque dicemus, Christum esse in eucharistia vere,
realiter, substantialiter, ut concilium recte loquitur; sed

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 53

with human pride and curiosity, which would seem
to understand all things! Where is the danger ?
and what doth he fear, as long as all they that
believe the Gospel own the true nature and the
real and substantial presence of the body of
Christ in the sacrament, using that explication
of St. Bernard concerning the manner, which he
himself, for the too great evidence of truth, durst
not but admit? And why doth he own that the
manner is spiritual, not carnal, and then require a
carnal presence as to the manner itself? As for
us, we all openly profess with St. Bernard, that
the presence of the body of Christ in the sacra-
ment is spiritual, and therefore true and real;
and with the same Bernard and all the ancients,
we deny that the body of Christ is carnally either
present or given. The thing we willingly admit,
but humbly and religiously forbear to inquire into
the manner.

3. We believe a presence and union of Christ
with our soul and body, which we know not how
non dicemus corporaliter, id est, eo modo quo suapte
natura existunt corpora, nec sensibiliter, mobiliter, &c.
Immo contra dici posset esse spiritualiter, ut Bernardus
dicit in Sermone de 8. Martino.—Tamen non videtur hee
vox multum frequentanda, quia periculum esset, ne trahe-
retur ab adversariis, non tam ad modum, quam ad ipsam
naturam significandam: propter quod item periculum non

videtur valde usurpandum illud, non esse corporaliter, nisi
addatur continuo explicatio. De Euch, i. 2.]

54 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,

. to call better than sacramental, that is, effected
by eating; that while we eat and drink the conse-
crated bread and wine, we eat and drink there-
withal the body and blood of Christ, not in a
corporal manner, but some other way, incompre-
hensible, known only to God, which we call spi-
ritual; for if, with St. Bernard and the fathers, a
man goes no further, we do not find fault with a
general explication of the manner, but with the
presumption and self-conceitedness of those who
boldly and curiously inquire what is a spiritual
presence, as presuming that they can understand
the manner of acting of God’s Holy Spirit. We
contrariwise confess, with the fathers, that this
manner of presence is unaccountable and past
finding out, not to be searched and pried into by
reason, but believed by faith. And if it seems
impossible that the flesh of Christ should descend

-and come to be our food through so great a dis-
tance, we must remember how much the power
of the Holy Spirit exceeds our sense and our
apprehensions, and how absurd it would be to
undertake to measure his immensity by our weak-
ness and narrow capacity, and so make our faith
to conceive and believe what our reason cannot
comprehend.

4. Yet our faith doth not cause or make that
presence, but apprehends it as most truly and
really effected by the word of Christ; and the

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 55

faith whereby we are said to eat the flesh of Christ
is not that only whereby we believe that He died
for our sins (for this faith is required and sup-
posed to precede the sacramental manducation),
but more properly that whereby we believe those
words of Christ, “ This is My body ;”’ which was
St. Austin’s meaning when he said, “ Why dost
thou prepare thy stomach and thy teeth? Believe,
and thou hast eaten.”* For in this mystical eat-
ing, by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost,
we do invisibly receive the substance of Christ’s
body and blood, as much as if we should eat and
drink’ both visibly.

5. The result of all this is, that the body and
blood of Christ are sacramentally united to the
bread and wine, so that Christ is truly given to
the faithful; and yet is not to be here considered
with sense or worldly reason, but by faith, resting
on the words of the Gospel. Now it is said, that
the body and blood of Christ are joined to the
bread and wine, because that in the celebration of
the holy eucharist the flesh is given together with
the bread, and the blood together with the wine.
All that remains is, that we should with faith and
humility admire this high and sacred mystery,
which our tongue cannot sufficiently explain, nor
our heart conceive.

* Aug. super Joh. tract. 25 [§ 12. Ut quid paras dentes
et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti. |

56 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

CHAPTER: Ly.

1. Of the change of the bread and wine into the body and
blood of Christ, which the Papists call transubstantia-
tion. 2. Of God’s omnipotency. 3. Of the accidents
of the bread. 4. The sacramental union of the thing
signified with the sign. 5. and 6. The question is stated
negatively and affirmatively. 7. The definition of the
Council of Trent. The bull of Pope Pius IV., and the
Jorm of the oath by him appointed. The decretal of
Innocent III. The assertions of the Jesuits. 8. Tran-
substantiation a very monstrous thing.

1. Iris an article of faith in the Church of Rome,
that in the blessed eucharist the substance of the
bread and wine is reduced to nothing, and that in
its place succeeds the body and blood of Christ ;
as we shall see more at large, § 6. and 7. The
Protestants are much of another mind; and yet
none of them denies altogether but that there is a
conversion of the bread into the body (and conse-
quently of the wine into the blood) of Christ;
for they know and acknowledge that in the sacra-
ment, by virtue of the words and blessing of’
Christ, the condition, use, and office of the bread
is wholly changed; that is, of common and ordi-
nary, it becomes our mystical and sacramental
food; whereby, as they affirm and believe, the

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 57

true body of Christ is not only shadowed and
figured, but also given indeed, and by worthy
communicants truly received. Yet they believe
not that the bread loseth its own to become the
substance of the body of Christ; for the holy
Scripture, and the ancient interpreters thereof for
many ages, never taught such an essential change
and conversion, as that the very substance, the
matter and form of the bread, should be wholly
taken away, but only a mysterious and sacra-
mental one, whereby our ordinary is changed
into mystic bread, and thereby designed and ap-
pointed to another use, end, and office, than
before: this change, whereby supernatural effects
are wrought by things natural, while their essence
is preserved entire, doth best agree with the grace |
and power of God.

2. There is no reason why we should dispute
concerning God’s omnipotency, whether it can
do this or that, presuming to measure an infinite
power by our poor ability, which is but weakness.
We may grant that He is able to do beyond what
we can think or apprehend, and resolve His most
wonderful acts into His absolute will and power ;
but we may not charge Him with working con-
tradictions. And though God’s almightiness were
able in this mystery to destroy the substance of
bread and wine, and essentially to change it into
the body and blood of Christ, while the accidents

p2

58 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

_of bread and wine subsist of themselves without a
subject ; yet we desire to have it proved that God
will have it so, and that it is so indeed. For that
God doth it, because He can, is no argument; and
that He wills it, we have no other proof but the
confident assertion of our adversaries. Tertullian
against Praxias declared, ‘* that we should not
conclude God doth things because He is able;
but that we should inquire what He hath done.’’*
For God will never own that praise of His omni-
potency whereby His unchangeableness and His
truth are impaired, and those things overthrown
and destroyed which in His word He affirms to
be; for take away the bread and wine, and there
remains no sacrament.

3. They that say, that the matter and form of
the bread are wholly abolished, yet will have the
accidents to remain. But if the substance of the
bread be changed into the substance of Christ’s
body by virtue of His words, what hinders that
the accidents of the bread are not also changed
into the accidents of Christ’s body? They that
urge the express letter should shew that Christ
said, This is the substance of My body without its
accidents. But He did not say, that He gave

[* Non autem quia [ Deus] omnia potest facere, ideoque
credendum est, illum [hoe vel illud] fecisse, etiam quod
non fecerit; sed an fecerit requirendum. p. 319. ed. De
la Barre, 1582.]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 59

His disciples a fantastic body, —such a visionary
figment as Marcion believed,—but that very body
which was given for us, without being deprived
of that extension and other accidents of human
bodies without which it could not have been
crucified. Since the maintainers of transubstantia-
tion grant that the body of Christ keeps its quan-
tity in heaven, and say it is without the same in
the sacrament, they must either acknowledge
their contradiction in the matter, or give over
their opinion.

4. Protestants dare not be so curious, or pre-
sume to know more than is delivered by Scripture
and antiquity; they, firmly believing the words of
Christ, make the form of this sacrament to consist
in the union of the thing signified with the sign, ©
that is, the exhibition of the body of Christ with
the consecrated bread, still remaining bread: by
divine appointment these two are made one; and
though this union be not natural, substantial,
personal, or local, by their being one within
another, yet it is so straight and so true, that in
eating the blessed bread, the true body of Christ
is given to us, and the names of the sign and
thing signified are reciprocally changed,—what is
proper to the body is attributed to the bread, and
what belongs only to the bread is affirmed of the
body, and both are united in time, though not in
place; for the presence of Christ in this mystery

60 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

is not opposed to distance, but to absence, which
only could deprive us of the benefit and fruition
of the object.

5. From what hath been said, it appears that
this whole controversy may be reduced to four
heads :—1l. concerning the signs; 2. concerning
the thing signified; 3. concerning the union of
both; and, 4. concerning their participation.
As for the first, the Protestants differ from the
Papists in this, that according to the nature of
sacraments, and the doctrine of holy Scripture, we
make the substance of bread and wine, and they
accidents only, to be signs. In the second, they,
not understanding our opinion, do misrepresent
it; for we do not hold (as they say we do) that
only the merits of the death of Christ are repre-
sented by the blessed elements, but also that His
very body which was crucified, and His blood
which was shed for us, are truly signified and
offered, that our souls may receive and possess
Christ as truly and certainly as the material and
visible signs are by us seen and received. And
so, in the third place, because the thing signified
is offered and given to us as truly as the sign
itself, in this respect we own the union betwixt
the body and blood of Christ and the elements,
whose use and office we hold to be changed from
what it was before. But we deny what the Papists
affirm, that the substance of bread and wine are

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 61

quite abolished, and changed into the body and
blood of our Lord, in such sort that the bare
accidents of the elements do alone remain united
with Christ’s body and blood. And we also deny
that the elements still retain the nature of sacra-
ments when not used according to divine institu-
tion, that is, given by Christ’s ministers, and
received by His people; so that Christ in the |
consecrated bread ought not, cannot be kept and
preserved to be carried about, because He is pre-
sent only to the communicants. As for the fourth
and last point, we do not say that in the Lord’s
supper we receive only the benefits of Christ’s
death and passion; but we join the ground with
its fruits, that is, Christ with those advantages
we receive from Him; affirming with St. Paul,
** that the bread which we break is xowwvia, the
communion of the body of Christ; and the cup
which we bless, the communion of His blood ;”*
of that very substance which He took of the
blessed virgin, and afterwards carried into heaven ;
differing from those of Rome only in this, that
they will have our union with Christ to be cor-
poral, and our eating of Him likewise; and we,
on the contrary, maintain it to be indeed as true,
but not carnal or natural. And as he that re-
ceives unworthily (that is, with the mouth only,

* 1 Cor. x. 16.

62 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,

but not with a faithful heart) eats and drinks his
‘own damnation; so he that doth it worthily re-
ceives his absolution and justification, that is, he
that discerns, and then receives the Lord’s body
as torn, and His blood as shed, for the redemption
of the world. But that Christ (as the Papists
affirm) should give His flesh and blood to be
received with the mouth and ground with the
teeth, so that not only the most wicked and infi-
dels, but even rats and mice should swallow Him
down, this our words and our hearts do utterly
deny. |

6. So then (to sum up this controversy, by
applying to it all that hath been said,) it is not
questioned whether the body of Christ be absent
from the sacrament duly administered according
to His institution, which we Protestants neither
affirm nor believe; for it being given and received
in the communion, it must needs be that it is
present, though in some manner veiled under the
sacrament, so that of itself it cannot be seen.
Neither is it doubted or disputed whether the
bread and wine, by the power of God and a
supernatural virtue, be set apart and fitted for a
much nobler use, and raised to a higher dignity than »
their nature bears ; for we confess the necessity of
a supernatural and heavenly change, and that
the signs cannot become’ sacraments but by the
infinite power of God, whose proper right it is to

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 63

institute sacraments in His Church, being able
alone to endue them with virtue and efficacy.
Finally; we do not say that our blessed Saviour
gave only the figure and sign of His body, neither
do we deny a sacramental union of the body and
blood of Christ with the sacred bread and wine,
so that both are really and substantially received
together ; but (that we may avoid all ambiguity)
we deny that after the words and prayer of
consecration, the bread should remain bread no
longer, but should be changed into the substance
of the body of Christ, nothing of the bread but
only the accidents continuing to be what they
were before. And so the whole question is con-
cerning the transubstantiation of the outward
elements ; whether the substance of the bread be
turned into the substance of Christ’s body, and
the substance of the wine into the substance of
His blood; or, as the Romish doctors describe
their transubstantiation, whether the substance of
bread and wine doth utterly perish, and the sub-
stance of Christ’s body and blood succeed :in their
place, which are both denied by Protestants. .

7- The Church of Rome sings on Corpus
Christi day, “ This is not bread, but God and
man my Saviour.” And the Council of Trent
doth thus define it: “ Because Christ our Re-
deemer said truly, that that was His body which
He gave in the appearance of bread; therefore it

64 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

was ever believed by the Church of God, and is
“now declared by this sacred synod, that by the
power of consecration the whole substance of
the bread is changed into the substance of
Christ’s body, and the whole substance of the
wine into the substance of His blood; which
change is fitly and properly called ¢ransubstan-
tiation by the holy Catholic (Roman) Church.*
Therefore, if any one shall say, that the substance
of bread and wine remains with the body and
blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and shall deny
that wonderful and singular conversion of the
whole substance of the bread and wine into the
substance of the body and blood of. Christ, the
only appearance and outward form of the bread
and wine remaining, which conversion the Catho-
lic (Roman) Church doth fitly call transubstantia-
tion, let him be accursed.” t The pope, confirm-

* Cone, Trident. Sess. xiii.c. 4. [Quoniam autem Chris-
tus Redemptor noster corpus suum, id quod sub specie
panis offerebat, vere esse dixit; ideo persuasum semper in
ecclesia Dei fuit, idque nune denuo sancta hee synodus de-
clarat, per consecrationem panis et vini, conversionem fieri
totius substantie panis in substantiam corporis Christi
Domini nostri, et totius substantize vini in substantiam -
sanguinis ejus; que conversio convenienter et proprie a
sancta Catholica Ecclesia transubstantiatio est appellata. |

+ Ibid. can. ii. [Si quis dixerit in sacrosancto eucha-
ristiz sacramento remanere substantiam panis et vini una
cum corpore et’sanguine Domini nostri Jesu Christi, nega-

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 65

ing this council, defines it after the same manner,
imposeth an oath and declaration to the same
purpose, and so makes it one of the new articles
of the Roman faith, in the form and under the
penalty following: ‘* I, N., do profess and firmly
believe all and every the singulars contained in
the confession of faith allowed by the holy Church
of Rome; viz.: I believe in one God, &c.—I also
profess that the body and blood, with the soul
and godhead of our Saviour Jesus Christ, are
truly, really, and substantially in the mass and in
the sacrament of the eucharist, and that there is
a conversion of the whole substance of the bread
into the body, and of the whole substance of the
wine into the blood of Christ ; which conversion

the (Roman) Catholic Church calls transubstan- —
tiation.—I fully embrace all things defined, de-
clared, and delivered by the holy Council of
Trent ; and withal I do reject, condemn, and ac-
curse all things by it accursed, condemned, or
rejected. I do confidently believe that this faith,
which I now willingly profess, is the true Catholic
faith, without the which it is impossible to be
saved; and I do promise, vow, and swear, that I

veritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversionem totius
substantiz panis in corpus, et totius substantie vini in
sanguinem, manentibus dumtaxat speciebus panis et vini,
quam quidem conversionem Catholica Ecclesia aptissime
transubstantiationem appellat, anathema sit. |

66 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

will constantly keep it whole and undefiled to my
"very last breath: so help me God and these holy
Gospels.”* Afterwards he bravely concludes this
decree with this commination: “ Let no man,
therefore, dare to attempt the breaking of this our
deed and injunction, or be so desperate as to
oppose it. And if any one presumes upon such

* Bulla Pii Pape IV. confir. Conc. Trident. [in Hard.
Concilia, x. p. 199. Ego N. firma fide credo et profiteor
omnia et singula que continentur in symbolo fidei, quo
sancta Romana Ecclesia utitur; videlicet: Credo in unum
Deum, &c.—Profiteor pariter in missa offerri Deo verum,
proprium et propitiatorium sacrificium pro vivis et defunc-
tis; atque in sanctissimo eucharistize sacramento esse vere,
realiter, et substantialiter corpus et sanguinem, una cum
anima et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, fierique
conversionem totius substantive viniin sanguinem; quam
conversionem Catholica Ecclesia transubstantiationem ap-
pellat.— Cetera item omnia a sacris canonibus et cecume-
nicis conciliis, ac preecipue a sacrosancta Tridentina synodo
tradita, definita, et declarata, indubitanter recipio atque
profiteor; simulque contraria omnia atque hereses quas-
cumque ab Ecclesia damnatas, rejectas et anathematizatas,
ego pariter damno, rejicio et anathematizo. Hanc veram
Catholicam fidem, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest,
quam in presenti sponte profiteor et veraciter teneo, eam-
dem integram usque ad extremum vite spiritum constan-:
tissime, Deo adjuvante, retinere et confiteri, atque a meis
subditis, vel illis quorum cura ad me in munere meo spec-
tabit, teneri, doceri, et preedicari, quantum in me erit cura-
turum, ego idem N. spondeo, voveo ac juro. Sic me Deus
adjuvet et hee sancta Dei evangelia. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 67

an attempt, let him know that he thereby incurs
the wrath of almighty God, and of his blessed
apostles Peter and Paul. Given at Rome, in
St. Peter’s church, the thirteenth of November,
in the year of our Lord 1564, the fifth of our
pontificate.”* Which is as much as to say, that
he had received this his Roman faith from Pope
Innocent III., who first decided and imposed this
doctrine of the transubstantiation of the bread
and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and
made it an article of faith, adding this new-
devised thirteenth to the ancient twelve articles.
For so we find it published in his decretal pro-
pounded to the assembly at Lateran in 1215, and
proclaimed afterwards by his nephew Pope Gre- _
gory IX.: thus; “ We firmly believe and simply
acknowledge that there is one only true God, &c.;
and that in the sacrament of the altar the body
and blood of Christ are truly contained under the
accidents of bread and wine, which are transub-
stantiated, the bread into the body, and the wine

[* Ib. p. 201. Nulli ergo omnium hominum liceat hanc
paginam nostre voluntatis et mandati infringere, vel ei
ausu temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoe attentare
presumserit, indignationem omnipotentis Dei ac beatorum
Petri et Pauli apostolorum ejus se noverit incursurum.
Datum Rome apud sanctum Petrum, anno incarnationis
1564, idibus Novembris, pontificatus nostri anno quinto. |

68 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

_Iinto the blood.” * To these definitions of popes, I
will add only the tenets of three Jesuits, which
are highly approved by the late followers of the
new Roman faith. First, of Alphonsus Salmeron :
‘* We must of necessity,” saith he, “ hold tran-
substantiation, that the substance of bread and
wine, which Luther and some others admit, may
be excluded ; that the words of Christ’? (which
yet are most true without that) “ may be verified ;
that”’ (how few of these many are pertinent to their
purpose will be seen hereafter) “ the many testi-
monies of the fathers concerning conversion, mu-
tation, consecration, benediction, transformation,
sanctification, for by all these names almost they
have called transubstantiation, may stand firm, and
not be vain and insignificant ; and lastly, that we
may maintain a solid presence of the body and
blood of Christ.”+ Item: “ As David changed his

* Decret. de sum. Trin. et fide Cathol. tit. i. [Harduin,
vii. 15. Firmiter credimus et simpliciter confitemur, quod
unus solus est verus Deus.—Corpus et sanguis in sacra-
mento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter con-
tinentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in san-
guinem. |

[+ Commentarii in Evangelia] tom. ix. tract. 16. [p. |
108. Necessario autem statuenda est transubstantiatio :
tum ut excludatur panis et vini substantia, quam Lutherus
et aliqui admiserunt ; tum ut verba Domini vera invenian-
tur, ut deducemus; tum ut infinita patrum testimonia de

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 69

countenance before Abimelech, and then received
the shewbread, that was a certain type of the
eucharist, so Christ in the sacrament feigns him-
self to be bread, and yet is not bread, though he
seems so to be most visibly.”* Secondly, of Car-
dinal Francis Tolet: “ The words of consecration
are efficacious instruments whereby to transub-
stantiate the substance of the bread into the true
body of Christ ; so that after they are spoken, there
remains in the host none of the substance of the
bread, but only the accidents of it, which are called
the properties of the bread, under which the true
body of Christ is present.”’+ Thirdly, and lastly,
of Cardinal Bellarmine: “ The Catholic Church
ever taught, that by the conversion of the bread
and wine into the body and blood of Christ (which

conversione, commutatione, transformatione, sanctifica-
tione, consecratione, benedictione, (tot enim fere nominibus
appellata ab illis transubstantiatio est) firma sint, et non
inania vel futilia; tum denique ut solidam corporis et san-
guinis Christi preesentiam absque ullo loci motu tueri pos-
sumus. |

* Tom. xvi. disp. iii. ini. Ep. S. Petri [2. p.67. Nam ut
David coram Abimelec vultum suum mutavit, et tunc ac-
cepit panes propositionis, qui erant certus eucharistie typus,
ita Christus in sacramento simulat se panem esse, qui pro-
prie panis non est, etsi esse maxime videatur. |

+ Instr. Sacerd. 1. ii. c. xxvii. [p. 469, ed. 1603. Sunt
enim illa verba, Hoc est enim corpus meum, ita efficacia,
ut sint instrumenta transubstantiandi substantiam panis in

70 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

_conversion hath been in after-times called tran-
substantiation), it comes to pass that the body and
blood of our Lord are truly and really present in
the sacrament.’”’* It would be to no purpose to
bring the testimonies of others of the Latin or
Roman Church, who give to the pope an absolute
power of defining what he pleaseth, for they are
but the same stuff as these: but if any one hath a
mind, let him» consult Gretserus his defence of
Bellarmine,+ or his dialogue who first writ against
Luther,{ who both reduce the whole matter to the
judgment and decree of the pope.

8. Now, we leave inquiring what God is able
to do; for we should first know His will in this
matter, before we examine His power; yet thus
much we say, that this Roman transubstantiation

Christi verum corpus ; ita ut post prolationem, in illa hostia
non sit panis ulla substantia, sed sola accidentia ipsius,
scilicet, quantitas, cum colore, et sapore, odore, et primis
qualitatibus, que dicuntur species panis, sub quibus est
verum corpus Christi presens. |

* Controversize ; de Euchar. iii. ch. xi. [Catholica Ec-
clesia semper docuit per conversionem substantie panis et
vini in corpus et sanguinem Domini, que conversio post-
modum transubstantiatio appellata est, fieri ut corpus et
sanguis Domini vere ac realiter in sacramento eucharistia
presentia sint. |

+ Defensio Bellarmini, lib. iii. ¢. ix.

{ Sylv. Prieras sub initio. [See Lutheri Op. i. 62 sq.
and Brown’s Fasciculus, ii. 880.]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 71

is so strange and monstrous, that it exceeds the
nature of all miracles. And though God by His
almightiness be able to turn the substance of
bread into some other substance, yet none will
believe that He doth it, as long as it appears to
our senses that the substance of the bread doth
still remain whole and entire. Certain it is that
hitherto we read of no such thing done in the Old
or New Testament; and therefore this tenet, being
as unknown to the ancients as it is ungrounded in
Scripture, appears as yet to be very incredible ;
and there is no reason we should believe such an
unauthorised figment, newly invented by men, and
now imposed as an article of Christian religion.
For it is in vain that they bring Scripture to defend
this their stupendous doctrine; and it is not true,
what they so often and so confidently affirm, that
the universal Church hath always constantly
owned it, being it was not so much as heard of
in the Church for many ages, and hath been but
lately approved by the pope’s authority in the
councils of Lateran and Trent; as I shall prove
in the following chapters.

72 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

CHAPTER V.

That neither the word nor name of transubstantiation, nor
the doctrine or the thing itself, is taught or contained in
holy Scripture, or in the writings of the ancient doctors
of the Church, but rather is contrary to them ; and there-
fore not of faith.

1. Tue word transubstantiation is so far from
being found either in the sacred records or in the
monuments of the ancient fathers, that the main-
tainers of it do themselves acknowledge that it
was not so much as heard of before the twelfth
century. For though one Stephanus, bishop of
Autun, be said to have once used it, yet it is
without proof that some modern writers make
him one of the tenth century; nor yet doth he
say, that the bread is transubstantiated, but as it
were transubstantiated, which, well understood,
might be admitted.*

2. Nay, that the thing itself without the
word, that the doctrine without the expression,
cannot be found in Scripture, is ingenuously ac-
knowledged by the most learned schoolmen, Sco-
tus, Durandus, Biel, Cameracensis, Cajetan, and

* See ch. i. art. 6, ch. iii. art. 4, ch. iv. art. 5, and this
ch, art. 5. ~

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 73

many more, who, finding it not brought in by
the pope’s authority, and received in the Roman
Church, till 1200 years after Christ, yet endea-
voured to defend it by other arguments.

3. Scotus confessed, ‘ that there is not any
place in Scripture so express as to compel a man
to admit of transubstantiation, were it not that
the Church hath declared for it,” * (that is, Pope
Innocent III. in his Lateran council). Duran-
dus said, * that the word is found, but that by it
the manner they contend for cannot be proved.” t

* Scotus in iv, Sentent. d. xi. q. 3. [In opinione secunda
(sc, non manere panem, nec converti, sed desinere per anni-
hilationem, &c.) potest argui—quia ista transubstantiatio
non videtur magis probari ex Scriptura, quam panem non
manere, imo minus.—Principaliter autem videtur movere,
quod de sacramentis tenendum est, sicut tenet sancta
Romana Ecclesia; sicut habetur Evira. De hereticis, ad
abolendam. Nunc autem ipsa tenet panem transubstan-
tiariin corpus et vinum in sanguinem.—Et si queeras quare
voluit Ecclesia eligere istum intellectum ita difficilem hujus
articuli, cum verba Scripture possent salvari secundum
intellectum facilem, et veriorem secundum apparentiam de
hoc articulo ; dico, quod eo Spiritu exposite sunt Scripture
quo condite. Et ita supponendum est, quod Ecclesia Ca-
tholica eo Spiritu exposuit, quo tradita est nobis fides. |

+ Durand. ut supra. [Verbum audiri, sed ex verbo
modum hune sciri negavit Durandus. Orig. Lat. I cannot
find any sentence like this in Durandus ; but it is unques-
tionable that it contains his sentiments: as for instance ;
Satis etiam durum est, et derogare videtur immensitati
divine potenti, dicere quod Deus non possit facere corpus

E

74 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

» Biel affirms, “ that it is no where found in cano-
nical Scriptures.”* Occam declared, “ that it is
easier, more reasonable, less inconvenient, and
better agreeing with Scripture, to hold that the
substance of the bread remains.”+ After him

suum esse in sacramento per alium modum quam per
conversionem substantiz panis in ipsum, maxime cum
ponendo conversionem fieri, difficillimum est videre qua-
liter ipsa faciat aliquid ad hoe quod corpus Christi sit in
sacramento.— And, having explained his own opinion,
which certainly is not the modern Romanist, and for
which he has drawn upon himself the censure of Cajetan
and other scholastic commentators, he says: Si autem iste
modus esset verus de facto multe dubitationes que occur-
runt circa hoc sacramentum (tenendo quod substantia panis
non remaneat) essent solute.—Sed quia hic modus non
debet teneri de facto, cum Ecclesia determinaverit opposi-
tum, quee non preesumitur errare in talibus, ideo tenendo
de facto aliam partem, respondendum ad argumenta que
sunt in contrarium. In Sentent. lib. iv. dist. xi. q. 1.]

* Biel in Can. missa, lect. 40. [f. 94. b. ed. Basil. 1515.
Circa quod notandum, quod quamvis expresse tradatur in
Scriptura, quod corpus Christi veraciter sub speciebus panis
continetur, et a fidelibus sumitur, ut patuit lectione pre-
cedente ; tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus, an per con-
versionem alicujus in ipsum, an sine conversione incipiat
esse corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus substantia et ac-
cidentibus, non invenitur expressum in canone Biblie. |

+ Occam in iv. Sent. q.6. [Primus modus patet, quia
hoc potest fieri per simplicem coexistentiam veri corporis
Christi substantize panis.— Primus modus potest teneri, quia
non repugnat rationi nec alicui auctoritati Biblia, et est
rationabilior et facilior ad tenendum inter omnes modos. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 75

Cardinal Cameracensis doth also confess, “ that
transubstantiation cannot be proved out of the
Scriptures.”* Nay, the Bishop of Rochester saith
himself, “‘ that there is no expression in Scripture
whereby that conversion of substance in the mass
can be made good.”’+ Cardinal Cajetan likewise:
“there is not any thing of force enough in the

[* Petr. de Alliaco Card.] Cam. in iv. d. xi. q. 6. [f. 265.
Secunda opinio fuit, quod substantia panis non remanet
panis, nec tamen desinit esse simpliciter, sed reducitur in
materiam per se stantem vel aliam formam recipientem, et
hoe sive in eodem loco, sive in alio, et corpus Christi co-
existit accidentibus panis ; et heec opinio non potest repro-
bari, nec per evidentem rationem, nec per auctoritatem
Scripture cognitam. |

+ [Fisher] contra Lutherum, de Capt. Babyl. c.i. [ Bp.
Fisher can hardly be reckoned among the number of those
who acknowledged that transubstantiation cannot be found
in the Scriptures. He is, however, like others of the same
time, not very consistent with himself. In his work Contra
Captivitatem Babylonicam, after arguing, justly enough,
that the Scriptures alone are not a sufficient rule of inter-
pretation to themselves, he says, in ch. x.: Ceterum quia
Lutherus hanc controversiam introduxerat, ex eo justissima
nobis datur occasio jam prestandi, quod ante pollicebamur,
nimirum, ostendendi quod intellectus evangelii certius ha-
beri potest ex interpretatione patrum, et usu nobis ab eisdem
tradito, quam ex nudis ipsius evangelii verbis. Simulque
patebit, non posse ex ipso evangelio probari missam esse
promissionem. Sed prius illud aggrediamur et doceamur,
quod citra patrum interpretationem et usum nobis ab eis-
dem traditum, nemo probabit ex ipsis nudis evangelii

76 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,.

» Gospel to make us understand in a proper sense
these words, ‘ This is My body.’* Nay, that pre-
sence which the Church (of Rome) believes in
the sacrament cannot be proved by the words of
Christ without the declaration of the (Roman)
Church.”+ Lastly, Bellarmine himself doth say,

verbis sacerdotem quempiam his temporibus veram Christi
carnem et sanguinem consecrare.

But then again, in ch. iv., he says: Sed et eucharistiam
panem posse vocari, communis usus loquendi manifestat,
Nam quum ovum, de quo supra disseruimus, in carnem et
substantiam pulli versum fuerit, numquid non adhuc, pro
communi loquendi more, vocatur ovum? et tamen haud-
quaquam ovum est, sed vere pullus; et propterea priorem
ovi nomenclaturam retinet, quia specie tenus referat ovum.
Atque ita pariter et hoc sacramentum, pro communi usu
loquendi, potest adhuc panis dici, panisque vocabulum
adhue retinet in Scripturis, quaamquam omnino desierit ipsa
panis substantie. This explanation is adopted by Cardi-
nal Hosius and some others. |

* Cajetan in Tho. p. iii. q. 75. art.i. [Sciendum est, ex
auctoritate sacree Scripture de existentia corporis Christi in
sacramento eucharistiz nihil aliud haberi expresse, nisi
verbum Salvatoris dicentis, Hoc est corpus meum. |

+ Ibid. q. 45. art. 14. [The reference is the same also
in the Latin copy, but is manifestly incorrect, since there
is no art. 14, nor does the passage referred to occur any
where in that chapter. In quest. lxxy. art. 4. ad fin.,
Cajetan, after arguing against the explanation of the doc-
trine of transubstantiation as given by Durandus (that is, a
union of essences), concludes: Constat quod transubstan-
tiatio importat aliud quam unionem materiarum, quam

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 77

“that though he might bring Scripture clear
enough, to his thinking, to prove transubstantia-
tion by, to an easy man, yet still it would be
doubtful whether he had done it to purpose, be-
cause some very acute and learned men, as Scotus,
hold that it cannot be proved by Scripture.’’*
Now in this Protestants desire no more but to be
of the opinion of those learned and acute men.

4, And indeed the words of institution would
plainly make it appear to any man that would
prefer truth to wrangling, that it is with the bread
that the Lord’s body is given, as His blood with
the wine: for Christ, having taken, blessed, and
broken the bread, said, “ This is My body ;” and
St. Paul, than whom none could better under-
stand the meaning of Christ, explains it thus:
finxit Durandus fieri sub forma corporis Christi. Sonat
namque apud omnes fideles mutationem quandam panis in
corpus Christi ineffabilem.— Unde prestat, cum universali
Ecclesia, in captivitatem redigere intellectum in obsequium
Christi, quam, contra Ambrosii precepta, nature vires,
ordinem aut potentiam in hoc mysterio querere. |

* Bell. de Euch. 1. iii. c. 28. [Dicit (Scotus in iv.
dist. xi. q. 3.) non extare locum ullum Scripture tam
expressum, ut sine Ecclesiz declaratione evidenter cogat
transubstantiationem admittere. Atque id non est omnino
improbabile. Nam etiamsi Scriptura, quam nos supra ad-
duximus, videatur nobis tam clara, ut possit cogere homi-
hem non protervum; tamen an ita sit merito dubitari
potest, cum homines doctissimi et acutissimi, quam im-
primis Scotus fuit, contrarium sentiant. |

78 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

‘“*The bread which we break is the xowvwvia,
communion or communication of the body of
Christ,” that whereby his body is given, and the
faithful are made partakers of it.* That it was
bread which He reached to them, there was no
need of any proof, the receivers’ senses suffi-
ciently convinced them of it; but that therewith
His body was given, none could have known, had
it not been declared by Him who is the truth
itself. And though by the divine institution, and
the explication of the apostle, every faithful com-
municant may be as certainly assured that he
receives the Lord’s body, as if he knew that. the
bread is substantially turned into it, yet it doth
not therefore follow, that the bread is so changed
that its substance is quite done away, so that
there remains nothing present but the very natural
body of Christ made of bread. For certain it is,
that the bread is not the body of Christ, any
otherwise than as the cup is the new testament;
and two different consequences cannot be drawn
from those two not different expressions. There-
fore, as the cup cannot be the new testament but
by a sacramental figure, no more can the bread be
the body of Christ but in the same sense. |
5. As to what Bellarmine and others say,
that it is not possible the words of Christ can be

[* This is Thorndike’s view also. See his Epilogue to
the Tragedy of the Church of England, book ii. p. 5.]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 79

true but by that conversion which the Church of
Rome calls ¢ransubstantiation, that is so far from
being so, that, if it were admitted, it would, first,
deny the Divine omnipotency, as though God
were not able to make the body of Christ present,
and truly to give it in the sacrament, whilst the
substance of the bread remains; secondly, it would
be inconsistent with the Divine benediction, which
preserves things in their proper being; thirdly, it
would be contrary to the true nature of a sacra-
ment, which always consisteth of two parts; and
lastly, it would in some manner destroy the true
substance of the body and blood of Christ, which
cannot be said to be made of bread and wine by a
priest without a most high presumption. But the
truth of the words of Christ remains constant, —
and can be defended, without overthrowing so
many other great truths. Suppose a testator puts
deeds and titles in the hand of his heir, with these
words, ‘ Take the house which I bequeath thee ;’
there is no man will think that those writings and
parchments are that very house, which is made of
wood or stones; and yet no man will say that the
testator spake falsely or obscurely. Likewise our
blessed Saviour, having sanctified the elements by
His words and prayers, gave them to His disciples
as seals of the new testament; whereby they were
as certainly secured of those rich and precious
legacies which He left to them, as children are of

80 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

_their father’s lands and inheritance by deeds and

instruments signed and delivered for that pur-
pose.

6. To the sacred records we may add the
judgment of the primitive Church: for those
orthodox and holy doctors of our holier religion,
those great lights of the Catholic Church, do all
clearly, constantly, and unanimously conspire in
this, that the presence of the body of Christ in
the sacrament is only mystic and spiritual. As
for the entire annihilation of the substance of the
bread and the wine, or that new and strange tenet
of transubstantiation, they did not so much as
hear or speak any thing of it; nay, the constant
stream of their doctrine doth clearly run against
it, how great soever are the brags and pretences
of the papists to the contrary. And if you will
hear them one by one, I shall bring some of their
most noted passages only, that our labour may
not be endless by rehearsing all that they have
said to our purpose on this subject.

7. 1 shall begin with that holy and ancient
doctor, Justin Martyr,* who is one of the first
after the apostles’ times whose undoubted writ-
ings are come to us. What was believed at Rome
and elsewhere in his time concerning this holy
mystery may well be understood out of these his
words: “ After that the bishop hath prayed and

* ap. 144, -

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 81

blessed, and the people said amen, those whom we
call deacons or ministers give to every one of
them that are present a portion of the bread and
wine; and that food we call the eucharist, for we
do not receive it as ordinary bread and wine.’’*
They received it as bread, yet not as common
bread. And a little after; “‘ By this food digested,
our flesh and blood are fed, and we are taught
that it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ.”
Therefore the substance of the bread remains,
and remains corruptible food, even after the con-
secration; which can in no wise be said of the
immortal body of Christ ; for the flesh of Christ is
not turned into our flesh, neither doth it nourish
it, as doth that food which is sacramentally called
the flesh of Christ: but the flesh of Christ feeds
our souls unto eternal life.

8. After the same manner it is written by
that holy martyr Irenzeus, bishop, much about

* Apologia ad Antoninum, prope finem. [p. 96. ed.
Thirlby. 08 cuvreAdoavtos tas ebxas Kad Thy ebxapiorriay, was 6
mapav Aadbs erevpnuel A€ywr, Auhy.—edxapiorhoavros 5& Tod mpo-
eor@tos, Kal emevpnuhoavtos mayTds Tov Aaod, of KarAotvuevor map’
jpiv Sidkova Siddaow Exdorm tov wapdyvTwy metadraPelv ard ebxa-
giorndevtos &prov Kal otvov Kal baros, Kal Tois ov magovaw amope-
gover’ Kal } Tpoph airy KaArEiTaL Tap july edxapioria.— ov yap ws
Kowdv tiprorv, ove Kowdy réua, TadTa AauBdvouer.— ek Ts [sc. ed-
xapiobelons tpopijs| aiua Kal odpkes Kara peraBorAdy tpépoyvta
npaey, éxelvov Tod capkoroinbértos *Inood Kal odpka Kal alua éb-
5dxOnuev elvan. |

E 2

82 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

,the same time :* “ The bread which is from the
earth is no more common bread after the invoca-
tion of God upon it, but is become the eucharist,
consisting of two parts, the one earthly, and
the other heavenly.”’+ There would be nothing
earthly, if the substance of the bread were re-
moved. Again; “ As the grain of wheat falling
in the ground and dying, riseth again much in-
creased, and then receiving the word of God
becomes the eucharist, which is the body and
blood. of Christ; so likewise our bodies nourished
by it, laid in the ground and dissolved, shall rise
again in their time.”{ Again; “ We are fed by
the creature, but it is He Himself that gives it;
He hath ordained and appointed that cup which
is a creature and His blood also, and that bread
which is a creature and also His body: and so,

* Aad. 160,

+ Lib. iv. cont. Heeres. c. 34. [iv. 18. § 5. ds yap amd
ys &ptos mpotAauBayduevos Thy ExkAnow Tov Ocod ovKéeri Kowds
&pros éotiv, GAN edxagiotia, ék Bio mpayudtwy cuveotynkvia ém-
yelou Te kal ovpavtou. |

{ Lib. v. c. 2. [al Svmep tpdmov 7d EAov Tod a&uméAou
KALWEY eis THY Yay TE idl@ Kaip@ exaproddpyce, kal 6 KdKKOS TOD
citov meow eis Thy yhv Kal Siadvbels moAAoords eyépOn, Sid Tod
TVEVUATOS TOV Oeov, TOU cuvexovTos TH mdvTa, emeita SE Sid THs
coplas Tod Oeod eis xpiow eAOdvTa avOpanwy, kal meocAauBaydueva
Tov Adyov Tod Ocod evxapioTia yiverou, Smep éo7 cGua Kal aiua Tod
Xpiorod, oltws Kal TA Hucrepa oduatra ef adris tpeddueva, Kad

TeOevra eis THY yh Kor SiaduvdevTa ev ath, dvarthrera ev 7G idip
Kaip@. | ‘

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. §3

when the bread and the cup are blessed by God’s
word, they become the eucharist of the body and
blood of Christ, and from them our bodies receive
nourishment and increase.”* Now, that our flesh
is fed and increased by the natural body of Christ,
cannot be said without great impiety by them-
selves, that hold transubstantiation: for naturally
nothing nourisheth our bodies but what is made
flesh and blood by the last digestion, which it
would be blasphemous to say of the incorruptible
body of Christ. Yet the sacred elements, which in
some manner are, and are said to be, the body and
blood of Christ, yield nourishment and increase to
our bodies by their earthly nature, in such sort
that by virtue also of the heavenly and spiritual
food which the faithful receive by means of the
material, our bodies are fitted for a blessed resur-
rection to immortal glory.

9. Tertullian, who flourished about the two
hundredth year after Christ, when as yet he was
Catholic, and acted by a pious zeal, wrote against

* Ibid. [ered méan aitod éopér, kad did THs KTloews Tpe-
pueda, thy St nrlow quiv abrds mapéxer, Toy HrLov abrod dvaréaA-
Awy Kal Bpéxwy, rades Botarcra. 7d amd Tis Ktloews woThpior, alua
BWrov apmordynoer, e& 05 Td juérepov Seder alua, kal tov ard THs KTi-
gews Uprov, Biov cGua SiaBeBardoato, ad’ ob TA jucrepa avger od-
para. drére obv Kal Td KeKpayevoy morhpiov, Kad 5 yeyovs pros
emidéxera: Tov Ad-yov Tod Ocod Kal yiverar | edxapioria cHua Xpic-
TOU, ek TobTwy St avter Kol cuvlotatar H THs capKds judy ind-
orTacts. |

84, HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Marcion the heretic, who, amongst his other im-
pious opinions, taught that Christ had not taken
of the virgin Mary the very nature and substance
of a human body, but only the outward forms and
appearances: out of which fountain the Romish
transubstantiators seem to have drawn their doc-
trine of accidents, abstracted from their subject,
hanging in the air, that is, subsisting on nothing.
Tertullian, disputing against this wicked heresy,
draws an argument from the sacrament of the
eucharist to prove that Christ had not a fantastic
and imaginary, but a true and natural body, thus :
the figure of the body of Christ proves it to be
natural ; for there can be no figure of a ghost or a
phantasm. ‘* But,’ saith he, “ Christ having taken
the bread, and given it to His disciples, made it His
body by saying, This is My body, that is, the
figure of My body. Now, it could not have been
a figure except the body were real; for a mere
appearance, an imaginary phantasm, is not capable
of a figure.”* Each part of this argument is true,
and contains a necessary conclusion. For, first,

* Contra Marcion, l. iv. c. 40. [Professus itaque se con-
cupiscentia coneupisse edere pascha, ut suum (indignum .
enim ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus), acceptum panem
et distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est
corpus meum dicendo ; id est, figura corporis mei. Figura
autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus. Ceterum
vacua res, quéd est phantasma, figuram capere non posset. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 85

the bread must remain bread, otherwise Marcion
would have returned the argument against Ter-
tullian, saying, as the transubstantiators, it was
not bread, but merely the accidents of bread, which
seemed to be bread. Secondly, the body of Christ
is proved to be true by the figure of it, which is
said to be bread; for the bread is fit to represent
that divine body, because of its nourishing virtue,
which in the bread is earthly, but in the body is
heavenly. Lastly, the reality of the body is proved
by that of its figure; and so if you deny the sub-
stance of the bread (as the papists do), you thereby
destroy the truth and reality of the body of Christ
in the sacrament.

10. Origen also, about the same time* with
Tertullian, speaks much after the same manner:
“ If Christ,” saith he, “ as these men (the Mar-
cionites) falsely hold, had neither flesh nor blood,
of what manner of flesh, of what body, of what
blood, did He give the signs and images when He
gave the bread and wine?’’t If they be the signs
and representations of the body and blood of
Christ, though they prove the truth of His body

* A.D. 220.

+ Dialogus contra Marcionitas. [lect. iv. p. 116. ed.
Westenii, 1674. «i & ds obrot gacw, &oapkos Kab tvaimos Fy,
notas capkds 7} tTlvos odpmaros i mwolov aluaros ecixdvas didovs, uptov
Te Ka) morhpiov everérdcero Tois uadnrais; This treatise is gene-
rally considered spurious. |

.

86 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

and blood, yet they, being signs, cannot be what
they signify; and they not being what they repre-
sent, the groundless contrivance of transubstantia-
tion is overthrown. Also upon Leviticus he doth
expressly oppose it thus: “ Acknowledge ye that
they are figures, and therefore spiritual, not car-
nal; examine and understand what is said; other-
wise, if you receive as things carnal, they will
hurt, but not nourish you. For in the Gospel there
is the letter, which kills him that understands not
spiritually what is said; for if you understand
this saying according to the letter, Except you eat
My fiesh and drink My blood, the letter will kill
you.’* Therefore as much as these words belong
to the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and
blood, they are to be understood mystically and
spiritually. Again, writing on St. Matthew, he
doth manifestly put a difference betwixt the true
and immortal, and the typic and mystical body
of Christ; for the sacrament consisteth of both.

* Homil. 7. in Levit. [§ 5. Agnoscite quia figure sunt,
qu in divinis voluminibus scripta sunt [1 Cor. xiv. 15],
et ideo tanquam spirituales et non tanquam carnales exa-
minate, et intelligite que dicuntur. Si enim quasi carnales
ista suscipitis, ledunt vos et non alunt.—Est et in Novo
Testamento litera que occidit eum qui non spiritualiter
que dicuntur adverterit. Si enim secundum literam
sequaris hoc ipsum quod dictum est, nist manducaveritis
carnem meam et biberitis sanguinem meum, occidit hee

litera. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 87

«“ That food,” saith he, “ which is sanctified by
the word of God and prayer, as far as it is mate-
rial, descends into the belly, and is cast out into
the draught.”’** This he saith of the typic, which
is the figure of the true body. God forbid we
should have any such thoughts of the true and
heavenly body of Christ, as they must that un-
derstand his natural body by what Origen calls
his material and sacramental body, which no man
in his wits can understand of mere accidents.

11. St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, a glori-
ous martyr of Christ, wrote a famous epistle to
Ceecilius concerning the sacred chalice in the
Lord’s supper, whereof this is the sum: “ Let that
cup which is offered to the people in commemora-
tion of Christ be mixed with wine” (against the
opinion of the Aquarii, who were for water only) ;
**for it cannot represent the blood of Christ when
there is no wine in the cup; because the blood of
Christ is expressed by the wine, as the faithful
are understood by the water.”{ But the patrons

* Matt. xv. (15. ef 3 wav 7d ciomopevduevor eis 7d ordpa
els KotAlay xwpet Kal eis apedpava éxBdAdAcTaL, Kal Td G&yraCsuevor
Bp&po: dia Adyou Ocod Kad évreviews, nat’ ard uty 7d SAuKdy eis Thy
Koirlav xwpel kat eis dpedgQGva éxBddAdAcrau.] Origen is unjustly
numbered, by reason of these words, among the heretics
called Stercoraniste.

+ A.D. 250.

} Lib. ii. ep. 3. sive 63. edit. Pamel. [Calix quiin com-
memorationem ejus offertur mixtus vino offeratur. Nam

88 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,.

. of transubstantiation have neither wine nor water
in the chalice they offer; and yet without them
(especially the wine, appointed by our blessed
Saviour, and whereof Cyprian chiefly speaks), the
blood of Christ is not so much as sacramentally
present: so far was the primitive Church from
any thing of believing a corporal presence of the
blood, the wine being reduced to nothing (that is,
to a mere accident without a substance) ; for then
they must have said, that the water was changed
into the people, as well as the wine into the blood.
But there is no need that I should bring many
testimonies of that father, when all his writings
do plainly declare that the true substance of the
bread and wine is given in the eucharist, that that
spiritual and quickening food which the faithful
get from the body and blood of Christ, and the
mutual union of the whole people joined into one
body, may answer their type, the sacrament which
represents them.

12. Those words of the council of Nice* are
well known, whereby the faithful are called from

cum dicat Christus, Ego sum vitis vera, sanguis Christi
non aqua est utique, sed vinum. Nec potest videri sanguis:
ejus, quo redempti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice, quando
vinum desit calici quo Christi sanguis ostenditur.—Quando
autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus ad-
unatur, et credentium plebs ei, &c. |

* A.D. 8265,

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 89

the consideration of the outward visible elements of
bread and wine, to attend the inward and spiritual
act of the mind, whereby Christ is seen and appre-
hended: “ Let not our thoughts dwell low on
that bread and that cup which are set before us;
but lifting up our minds by faith, let us consider
that on this sacred table is laid the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sins of the world.—And
receiving truly His precious body and blood, let
us believe these things to be the pledges and em-
blems of our resurrection; for we do not take
much, but only a little (of the elements), that we
may be mindful we do it not for satiety, but for
sanctification.”’** Now, who is there, even among
the maintainers of transubstantiation, that will
understand this not much, but a litile, of the body
of Christ? or who can believe that the Nicene
fathers would call His body and blood symbols in
a proper sense, when nothing can be an image or
a sign of itself? And therefore, though we are

* In Actis ibid. a Gelasio. Cyzic. conscript. [ch. 30.
Hard. Concil. i. 427. én) rijs Oelas tpamé(ns médw ndvtadda
Hh TE TpoKkemevy Upty kal TG wornpl tamewas mporéxwmev’ GAN
ipaocavres juav Thy didvow wiorer vohswuev KeioOa em ris iepas
exelyns tparé(ns Tov duvdv Tod @cod Tov alpovra Thy duaptlay Tod
ndopov, &0irws brd Tay lepéwy Ovduevov. Kad Td Titov avTod Tae
Kal aiua dAndas AauBdvortas jas morevew Tata elvar Td THs
huetépas dvarrdcews obuBora. 81d. rodTo yap obre TOAD AauBdvouer,
GAN oAlyov, va yaepev Sr. od« els TAnoLOVhy, GAN eis Gyiaopdr. ]

90 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

. not to rest in the elements, minding nothing else
(for we should consider what is chiefest in the
sacrament, that we have our hearts lifted up unto
the Lord, who is given together with the signs),
yet elements they are, and the earthly part of the
sacrament, both the bread and the wine; which
destroys transubstantiation.

13. St. Athanasius,* famous in the time and
present in the assembly of the Nicene council, a
stout champion of the Catholic faith, acknow-
ledgeth none other but a spiritual manducation
of the body of Christ in the sacrament. “ Our
Lord,”’ saith he, ** made a difference betwixt the
flesh and the spirit, that we might understand
that what he said was not carnal, but spiritual.
For how many men could His body have fed, that
the whole world should be nourished by it? But
therefore He mentioned His ascension into heaven,
that they might not take what He said in a cor-
poral sense, but might understand that His flesh
whereof He spake is a spiritual and heavenly food,
given by Himself from on high; for the words
that I spake unto you, they are spirit and they are
life ; as if He should say, My body which is shewn
and given for the world shall be given in food,
that it may be distributed spiritually to every one,
and preserve them all to the resurrection to eter-

* A.D. 330.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 91

nal life.’* Cardinal Perront having nothing to
answer to these words of this holy father, in a
kind of despair rejects the whole tractate, and
denies it to be Athanasius’s; which nobody ever
did before him, there being no reason for it.

14. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, of the same
age with St. Athanasius, treating of the chrism
wherewith they then anointed those that were
baptised, speaks thus: ‘ Take heed thou dost not
think that this is a mere ointment only: for as
the bread of the eucharist, after the invocation of
the Holy Ghost, is no longer ordinary bread, but
is the body of Christ, so this holy ointment is no
longer a bare common ointment after it is conse-
crated, but is the gift or grace of Christ, which, |
by His divine nature, and the coming of the Holy

* In illud Evangelii, Quicunque dixerit verbum, &c.
{ Matt. xii. 32. 1d mvedua mpds 7d Kara odpka diéoretrer, Iva wh
pedvov Td patvduevov, GAAG Kal rd adparov abTod moreboayres ud-
Owow, re nad &AEyet odk Cort CapKiKd, GAAL vevpaTiKd. méooLs yap
Hpke To oGua mpds Bpdow, iva Kal Tod Kécpuov TavTds TodTO Tpody
yentat; GAAG 81a Todo Tis eis obpavods SiaBdoews euynudvevoe
Tod viod Tod avOpdrov, iva Tis cwuarichs evvolas adTovs &pednton
Kat Aourdy Thy eipnuévnv cdpxa Bpdow tvwler opdviov, kad mvev-
Karichy tpophy nap’ abrod didouévnv uddwow. & yap AcAdANKA, bnoly,
duiy mvedpd ears Kad (wh lov TG cimeiv, 7d wey deKviuevor Kat
didduevoy ixtp Tod Kécuov d00hceTa tpoph, ds mvevuarinas év
éxdore tabrny dvadldocbau, Kad yiverOar maior pudaxrhpiov eis dvd-
oracw (wis aiwviov.—Vol. i. p. 979. ed. Paris, sae

+ De Euch. 1. ii. ¢, 1. art. 10.

¢ A.D. 350.

92 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Ghost, is made efficacious; so that the body is
anointed with the ointment, but the soul is sanc-
tified by the holy and vivifying Spirit.”* Can any
thing more clear be said? Either the ointment is
transubstantiated by consecration into the spirit
and grace of Christ, or the bread and wine are
not transubstantiated by consecration into the
body and blood of Christ. Therefore as the oint-
ment retains still its substance, and yet is not
called a mere or common ointment, but the cha-
rism, or grace of Christ; so the bread and wine
remaining so, as to their substance, yet are not
said to be only bread and wine common and
ordinary, but also the body and blood of Christ.
“* Under the type of bread,” saith he, “ the body
is given thee, and the blood under the type of the
wine.”+ This, Grodeciust doth captiously and un-

* Cateches. [xxi. Myst. i11.§ 3. Gar’ dpa ph brovonons
éxeivo Td upoy Wirdy elvar Bomep yap 6 UpTos THs evXapioTias weTa
Thy éxikAnow Tod aylov mvetuaTos, ovK ert &ptos Artds, GAAA Toa
Xpio Tov ob rw kad Td &ytov ToDTO pov odK Eri WiAdy, OVS ws By etrot
Tis Kowdy pet emlkAnow, GAAG Xpicrod xdpiowa Kal mveduaros
aylov mapovolg Tis avTod OedrnTos evepyntiKdy ywduevov.—kal TE
Bev pavouere pipy 7) goua xpletat, THE SE aryl Kat (worog mvev-
pare} Wuxh ayid eran. |

+ Catech. Myst. iv. “Thy bodily palate,” saith he,
‘“‘ tasteth one thing there, and thy faith another.” [§ 3.
év tim@ yap &prov didoral cor Td c&pua, Kad ev rUm@ olvov SidoTal
go. Td aiua—§ 6. wh ad Tis yedoews Kplyns Td mparypya, GAN dard
ris mlorews.— Compare also § 9. |

[t In the edition of 1608, Paris.]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 93

faithfully interpret under the appearances of bread
and wine: for those mere appearances, or acci-
dents subsisting without a subject, never so much
as entered into the mind of any of the ancients.
15. Much to the same purpose we have in the
Anaphora, or liturgy, attributed to St. Basil: “ We
have set before you the type of the body and
blood of Christ,”* which he calls the bread of the
eucharist after the consecration.t If it be the
type of the body, then certainly it cannot be the
body and nothing else; for, as we said before,
nothing can be the figure of itself, no more than a
man can be his own son or father. There be also
prayers in that liturgy, “ that the bread may be-
come the body of Christ, for the remission of sins _
and life eternal to the receivers.” { Now, true
it is, that to the faithful the element becomes a

* a.p. 360. [Qui proposuimus typum corporis et san-
guinis Christi tuiadoramus. Anaphora D. Basilii, ex cod.
Syrica lingua scripto trad. per And. Masium, p. 243. ed.
1659.—xpocbevres Ta Gytitura Tod aylov cdéuaros Kal aluaros Tod
Xeurod cov. Goar’s Rituale Grec. p. 168. |

+ De Sancto Spiritu. [ch, xxvii. 7d rijs erucaAfoews ph-
para én TH avadelte: Tod Uprov, Tis edxapiorias Kal Tod wornplov
Tis évdoylas tis Tay aylwv eyypadws jpiv Karadéroirev; The
genuineness of this treatise is questioned: Erasmus rejects
it; others admit it. ]

[t Effice panem istum corpus gloriosum Domini Dei
nostri Jesu Christi, corpus celeste, corpus vite efficiens,

94 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

, vivifying body, because they are truly partakers
of the heavenly bread, the body of Christ: but to
others, who either receive not, or are not believers,
to them the bread may be the antitype, but is not,
neither doth become the body of Christ; for with-
out faith Christ is never eaten, as is gathered from
the same father.*

16. St. Gregory Nyssen,t his brother, doth
clearly declare what change is wrought in the
bread and wine by consecration, saying: “ As the
altar naturally is but common stone, but, being
consecrated, becomes an holy table, a spotless
altar, so the bread of the eucharist is at first
ordinary, but, being mysteriously sacrificed, it is,
and is called, the body of Christ, and is efficacious
to great purposes: and as the priest (yesterday a
layman) by the blessing of ordination becomes a
doctor of piety and a steward of mysteries, and
though not changed in body or shape, yet is
transformed and made better as to his soul by an
invisible power and grace, so also, by the same
consequence, water, being nothing but water of |
itself, yet blest by a heavenly grace, renews the

corpus preciosum in expiationem culparum et remissionem
peccatorum, vitamque eternam iis qui accipiunt. p. 244. |
* De Baptismo [i. 3. Considered spurious by some
critics].
+ A.D. 370.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 95

man, working a spiritual regeneration in him.” *
Now let the assertors of transubstantiation main-
tain that a stone is substantially changed into an
altar, a man into a priest, the water in baptism
into an invisible grace; or else that the bread
is not so changed into the body of Christ; for
according to this father there is the same conse-
quence in them all.

17. Likewise St. Ambrose,+ explaining what
manner of alteration is in the bread when in the
eucharist it becomes the body of Christ, saith:
“Thou hadst indeed a being, but wert an old
creature; but being now baptised or consecrated,

* Orat. in baptismum Christi. [Opera, iii. p. 370. ed.
Paris, 1638. émel xal 7d Ovoiaorhpiov TodTo Td Eyov, 6 map-
eoTiKamev Aidos éotl Kata Thy plow Kowds ovdiv diapépwy Tav
tAAwy TAaKady at Tods Tolxous judy oiKodomodat.—eme) 5é Kabepaben
TH TOU Ocod Oeparela nad Thy eddoylay edékaro, Zor: Tpdmela ayia,
Ovoiacrhpiov &xpavtov.—6s &pros wdAw Upros ear réws kowds, BAN
Stay abtoy Td) wvoThpiov lepoupyhon, caua Xpiorrod Aéyeral re Kal
ylverar.—% airy 5& Tod Adyou Sivauis Kad Tov iepéa more? ceuvdy
Kal tTiuov, TH Kawdrnt. THs edAoylas THs mpds Tovs TOAAOds Kowws-
THTOS Xwpi(suevov. KOs yap Kal mpony eis dwdpxwv TV TOAAGY Kat
Tod Shuov, GOpdov amodelxvuTa Kabyyeudy, mpdedoos, d:ddoKaAos
evoeBelas, uvoTnplwoy AavOavdyvtwv wvotarywyds, Kal TadTa Tove? un-
Sty Tod céuaros } THs moppis ducipOels* GAN’ Sedpywv Kara Td
pawduevov exeivos ds hv, Gopdtw TWh Suvdue Kad xdpite Thy adparov
Wuxhy metamoppwbels mpds Td BéEATIOV.—KaTa St Thy duolay &kodov~
Olav Tay Aoyiopay Kal Td Hdwp oddev BAdo tvyxavdv 7 Twp, dvaxa-
vite tov &vOpwrov eis thy vonthy dvayéevnow. |

+ A.D. 380.

96 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

thou art become a new creature.”* The same
change that happens to man in baptism happens
to the bread in the sacrament: if the nature of
man is not substantially altered by the new birth,
no more is the bread by consecration. Man be-
comes by baptism not what nature made him, but
what grace new-makes him; and “ the bread be-
comes by consecration not what it was by nature,
but what the blessing consecrates it to be.’ For
nature made only a mere man, and made only
common bread; but regeneration, of a mere man
makes a hely man, in whom Christ dwells spi-
ritually : and likewise the consecration of common
bread makes mystic and sacramental bread; yet
this change doth not destroy nature, but to nature
adds grace: as is yet more plainly expressed by
that holy father in the fore-cited place; “ Per-
haps thou wilt say,” saith he, “ this my bread is
common bread. It is bread indeed before the
blessing of the sacrament; but when it is conse-
crated, it becomes the body of Christ. This we
are therefore to declare, how can that which is

* De Sacram. iv. cap. 4. [§ 16. Tu ipse eras, sed eras
vetus creatura: posteaquam consecratus es, nova creatura
esse ccepisti. |

+ Ambr. de Mysteriis, cap. 9. [Probemus non hoc esse
[corpus] quod natura formavit, sed quod benedictio conse-
cravit, majoremque vim esse benedictionis quam nature,
quia benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur. ]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 97

bread be also the body of Christ? By consecration :
and consecration is made by the words of our
Lord, that the venerable sacrament may be per-
fected. You see how efficacious is the word of
Christ. If there be then so great a power in the
word of Christ to make the bread and wine to be
what they were not, how much greater is that
power which still preserves them to be what
they were, and yet makes them to be what they
were not! Therefore, that I may answer thee, it
was not the body of Christ before the consecra-
tion, but now after the consecration it is the
body of Christ; he said the word, and it was
done: thou thyself wert before, but wert an old
creature; after thou hast been consecrated in bap-
tism, thou art become a new creature.”’* By these

* De Sacer. lib. iv. c. 4.[§ 14. Tu forte dicis: meus
panis est usitatus. Sed panis iste, panis est ante verba
sacramentorum ; ubi acceperit consecratio, de pane fit caro
Christi. Hoe igitur adstruamus ; quomodo potest qui panis
est, corpus esse Christi? Consecratione. Consecratio autem
quibus verbis est et cujus sermonibus? Domini Jesu. Nam
reliqua omnia que dicuntur in superioribus a sacerdote
dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo,
pro regibus, pro ceteris; ubi venitur ut conficiatur vene-
rabile sacramentum jam non suis sermonibus utitur sacer-
dos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi
hoe conficit sacramentum. Quis est sermo Christi? Nempe
is quo facta sunt omnia, Jussit Dominus, et factum est
ceelum : jussit Dominus, et facta est terra: jussit Dominus,

F

98 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

» words St. Ambrose teacheth how we are to under-
stand that the bread is the body of Christ, to wit,
by such a change that the bread and wine do not
cease to be what they were as to their substance
(for then they should not be what they were), and
yet by the blessing become what before they were
not; for so they are said to remain (as indeed
they do) what they were by nature, that yet they
are changed by grace, that is, they become assured
sacraments of the body and blood of Christ, and
by that means certain pledges of our justification
and redemption. What is there can refute more
expressly the dream of transubstantiation ?

18. St. Chrysostom* doth also clearly discard
and reject this carnal transubstantiation and eat-
ing of Christ’s body without eating the bread.
“* Sacraments,” saith he, “ ought not to be con-

et facta sunt maria: jussit Dominus, et omnis creatura
generata est. Vides ergo quam operatorius sit sermo
Christi. Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu, ut
inciperent esse quee non erant, quanto magis operatorius
est, ut sint que erant, et in aliud commutentur? Ccelum
non erat mare, mare non erat, sed audi dicentem David,
Ipse dixit, et facta sunt: ipse mandavit, et creata sunt.
Ergo tibi ut respondeam, non erat corpus Christi ante con-
secrationem, sed post consecrationem dico tibi quia jam cor-
pus est Christi. Ipse dixit, et factum est ; ipse mandavit,
et creatum est. Tu ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura;
posteaquam consecratus es nova creatura esse ccepisti. |
* a.vd. 390. ;

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 99

templated and considered carnally, but with the
eyes of our souls, that is spiritually, for such is the
nature of mysteries ;”* where observe the oppo-
sition betwixt carnally and spiritually, which ad-
mits of no plea or reply. Again: “ As in baptism
the spiritual power of regeneration is given to the
material water, so also the immaterial gift of the
body and blood of Christ is not received by any
sensible corporal action, but by the spiritual dis-
cernment of our faith, and of our hearts and
minds ;”+ which is no more than this, that sen-
sible things are called by the name of those spi-
ritual things which they seal and signify. But he
speaks more plainly in his epistle to Cesarius,
where he teacheth, that in this mystery there is
not in the bread a substantial but a sacramental
change, according to the which the outward ele-

* In Johan. [c. vi. 63. ri 5é éori 7d capKiKds vojoa; Td
amhas eis Ta mookelweva, Spay, kal wh wAéov Tt payTdecOa. TodTo
yap €or copKinds. xph 5& wh obrw Kplvew Tots Spwuevors, GAAG
ndvrTa TH wvoThoia Tots Evdov dpOaruois kaTrowredew. TodTO ydp ear:
TVEUMATIK@S. |

+ Ibid. [I have not been able to find this passage in the
Homilies on St. John. It is found in the Homilies on St.
Matthew, ch. xxvi. 35. ére} ofv 6 Adyos nol, rodTd dort Td cape:
Mov, kal meOapueba nad morebwuer, kad vonrois alts BrAérapmer 60-
Oarpots. ovdty yap aicOnroy mapédwkev juiv 5 Xpiords, 4A aicbn-
Tois wey modypact, mdvra 8é vonrd. oftw yap Kal ev 7S Bawrlc-
kart 30 aicOnrod ev mpdyparos ylverau Tod Fdaros Td Sapov, vonrov

d¢ 7d &moreAodmevor, 4 yérvnors Kad 4 [avayevynors, Hrovy] dva-
Katviors. |

100 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

‘ments take the name of what they represent, and
are changed in such a sort that they still retain
their former natural substance. ‘* The bread,”
saith he, “ is made worthy to be honoured with
the name of the flesh of Christ by the consecration
of the priest, yet the flesh retains the proprieties
of its incorruptible nature, as the bread doth its
natural substance. Before the bread be sanctified,
we call it bread; but when it is consecrated by
the divine grace, it deserves to be called the Lord’s
body, though the substance of the bread still re-
mains.”** When Bellarmine could not answer

* In Ep. ad Cesarium. [vol. iii. p. 895. Sicut enim an-
tequam sanctificatur panis panem nominamus: divina autem
illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est
quidem ab appellatione panis ; dignus autem habitus do-
minici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso
permansit.

The Romanists have attempted in two ways to invali-
date this authority ; some, like the Benedictines, denying
its authenticity, others, as Harduin, acknowledging its au-
thenticity, but denying its application to transubstantiation.
It is quoted as St. Chrysostom’s by Joan. Damascenus,
Anastasius, Nicephorus C. P., and others ; and is rejected by
the Benedictines on the ground of the difference ofits style
from the other writings of St. Chrysostom. But ifit differs
from the homiletical, it does not differ from some of his
epistolary writings: nor is there a greater discrepancy ob-
servable in it than in the homilies on St. Matthew from
those on St. John, or in the Acts of the Apostles from those
on the epistle to the Romans. It is absurd, therefore, to

a

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 101

this testimony of that great doctor, he thought it
enough to deny that this epistle is St. Chrysos-
tom’s:* but both he and Possevint do vainly
contend that it is not extant among the works of
Chrysostom. For besides that at Florence} and
elsewhere it was to be found among them, it is
cited in the collections against the Severians, which
are in the version of Turrianus the Jesuit, in the
fourth tome of Antig. Lectionum of Henry Canisius,
and in the end of the book of Joh. Damascenus
against the Acephali. I bring another testimony
out of the imperfect work on St. Matthew, writ-
ten either by St. Chrysostom or some other
ancient author,—a book in this at least very

reject this epistle on such presumptions; especially when
there are hardly any two critics who agree upon the style
of St. Chrysostom ; besides that so small a portion of the
original language of the epistle remains to enable us to
form a correct opinion. But whether it be genuine or not,
it but little affects the general argument: for till the Ro-
manists can produce, what they never have done and never
can do, a catena from the ancient fathers to prove, not that
the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ,
for that we acknowledge, but that after consecration the
substance of bread and wine remains no longer, their su-
gillating a few isolated passages is of little consequence. |

* De Eucharistia, ii. 22.

[+ Apparatus Sacr. p. 855. ]

{ Steph. Gardiner Episc. Wint. contra Pet. Mart. lib.
de Eucharistia. [See P. Martyri Defensio de Eucharistia,
p- 503. |

102 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

* orthodox, and not corrupted by the Arians: “ In
these sanctified vessels,” saith he, “ the true body
of Christ is not contained, but the mystery of His
body.”

19, Which also hath been said by St. Austin*
above a thousand times; but out of so many,
almost numberless, places I shall choose only
three, which are as the sum of all the rest.
“You are not to eat this body which you see,
nor drink this blood which My crucifiers shall
shed: I have left you a sacrament which, spi-
ritually understood, will vivify you:’+ thus St.
Austin, rehearsing the words of Christ. Again : “If
sacraments had not some resemblance with those
things whereof they are sacraments, they could
not be sacraments at all. From this resemblance
they often take the names of what they represent ;
therefore as the sacrament of Christ’s body is in
some sort His body, so the sacrament of faith is
faith also.”{ To the same sense is what he writes

* a.p. 400.

+ In Ps. [xeviii. § 9. Spiritaliter intelligite quod lo-
cutus sum: non hoc corpus quod videtis mandicaturi estis,
et bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me cruci-
figent. Sacramentum aliquot vobis commendavi, spiritali-
ter intellectum vivificabit vos. |

{ Epist. 23—98. ad Bonif. [Si enim sacramenta quam-
dam similitudinem earum rerum quarum sacramenta sunt
non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent. Ex hac
autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina

OE SS . 2

ee 2

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 103

against Maximinus the Arian: “ We mind in the
sacraments, not what they are, but what they shew;
for they are signs which are one thing, and signify
another.”* And in another place, speaking of
the bread and wine: “ Let no man look to what
they are, but to what they signify; for our Lord
was pleased to say, This is My body, when He gave
the sign of His body.”t This passage of St.
Austin is so clear, that it admits of no evasion
nor no denial: for if the sacraments are one thing,
and signify another, then they are not so changed
into what they signify, as that after that change
they should be no more what they were. The
water is changed in baptism, as the bread and
wine in the Lord’s supper ; but all that is changed
is not presently abolished or transubstantiated ;

accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quemdam modum sacra-
mentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum
sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est, ita sacramentum fidei
fides est. |

* Contra Maximinum [ii. 22. § 3. Heec enim sacra-
menta sunt, in quibus non quid sint, sed quid ostendant
semper adtenditur: quoniam signa sunt rerum aliud exis-
tentia et aliud significantia. |

+ De Doetrina Christ. [ii. ch. 1. § 1. De signis dis-
serens hoc dico; ne quis in eis adtendat quod sunt, sed
potius quod signa sunt, id est, quod significant.—§ 4. Nam
et odore unguenti Dominus quo perfusi sunt pedes ejus,
signum aliquod dedit, et sacramento corporis et sanguinis
sui pregustato [per gustum ?] significavit quod voluit. |

104 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

* for as the water remains entire in baptism, so do
the bread and wine in the eucharist.

20. St. Prosper,* orthodox in all things, who
lived almost in the time of Austin, teacheth, “ That
the eucharist consisteth of two things, the visible
appearance of the elements, and the invisible flesh
and blood of our Saviour Christ (that is, the sacra-
ment and the grace of the sacrament), as the per-
son of Christ is both God and man.’’+ Who but
the infamous heretic Eutyches would say that
Christ as God was substantially changed into
man, or as man into God? |

21. Upon this subject nothing can be more
clear than this of Theodoret,t whence we learn
what the primitive Church believes in this matter.
“* Our Saviour, in the institution of the eucharist,
changed the names of things, giving to His body
the name of its sacrament, and to the sacrament
the name of His body.” Now this was done for
this reason, as he saith, ‘ that they that are par-

* a.v. 430.

+ Sententiz Prosperi. [ Decret. Gratiani, De Consecra-
tione dist. 2. f. 618. b. Venet. 1514. Hoe est quod dicimus,
quod modis omnibus approbare contendimus, sacrificium
Ecclesiz duobus modis confici, duobus constare, visibili
sacramentorum specie, et invisibili Domini nostri Jesu
Christi carne et sanguine, et sacramento et re sacramenti,
id est corpore Christi. Sicut Christi persona constat et
conficitur ex Deo et homine. |

[t a.p. 481,]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 105

takers of the divine mysteries might not mind the
nature of what they see, but, by the change of
names, might believe that change which is wrought
by grace. For He that called what by nature is
His body, wheat and bread, He also honoured the
elements and signs with the names of His body
and blood, not changing what is natural, but add-
ing grace to it.”* He therefore teacheth that
such an alteration is wrought in the elements,
that still their nature and substance continues, as
he explains more plainly afterwards. For when
the heretic that stands for Eutychius had said,
“ As the sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood
are one thing before the prayer of the priest, and
afterwards, being changed, become another, so
also the body of our Lord after His ascension is
changed into the divine substance and nature,”’+
(according to the tenet of the transubstantiator,

* Dial. 1. [Immutabilis, iv. p. 17. ed. 1642. 65€ ye cwrhp
5 muerepos evhrdake Te dvduata Kal TE mev oduatt Td TOD cuuBdAov
Téeev bvoua, TE FE cuuBsAw Td TOU TépaTos.—jBovaAhon yap
Tovs Tay Ociwy uvoTnplwy weTadayxdvortas, uy TH poe: TY BrE-
Tomevov mporeXe, GAAG 51d TIS TOY dvoudrwv evadrrAayiis, MoT eve
TH ék THs xdprros yeyernuevy peTaBodrn. 6 yap 5) 7d hice: copa
ctrov Kal &prov mpocaryopedous, kal ad méAw éavrdy kumeroy dvo-
pdoas, obros Ta dpdueva obpBora TH Tod cduaros Kal aiwaros mpoc-
nyopla terlunkev, ov Thy plow peraBardy, GAAQ Thy xdpw TH
proe mpooreberkds. |

+ Dial. 2. [Inconfusus. Somep rotyyy ra cbuBora Tod dec-
ToTiKod odpatds Te Kal aluaros 4AAa wév ciot mpd THs lepatixijs

F 2

106 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

.this Eutychian argument is irrefragable, but) Ca-
tholic antiquity answers it thus: “ Thou art en-
tangled in the nets of thine own knitting; for the
elements or mystic signs depart not from their
nature after consecration, but remain in their
former substance, form, and kind, and can be
seen and touched as much as before; and yet
withal we understand also what they become now
they are changed. Compare, therefore, the copy
with the original, and thou shalt see their like-
ness; for a figure must answer tothe truth. That
body hath the same form and fills the same space
as before, and, in a word, is the same substance ;
but after its resurrection it is become immortal,’’*
&c. All this and much more is taught by Theo-
doret, who assisted at the universal councils of
Kphesus and Chalcedon. It is an idle exception
which is made by some in the Church of Rome,
emiKAHoews, meTa 5ێ ye Thy emlkAnow petaBdddAeTat Ka Ereva yive-

Ta. oTw Td SeomoTiKby Cua meta THY avdAnWw, cis Thy odolay
ueTaBANOn Thy Oelay. |

[* Ibid. p. 85. édaws ais &pnves Upxvow. od8 yap peta Tov
aylacuoy Ta pvoriKd obuBora THs oikelas elorarm pioews. ever
yap én) tis mporépas ovolas, kal Tov oxhwaros Kal Tod efSous, Kal
dpard éort kal arrd, ofa Kal mporepov hv" voetrar St dmep eyévero,
kal moreverat, Kal mpockuvetrat, ds exeiva dvta rep moreveras.
mapdbes Tolvuy TE apxerimw Thy eixdva, kal Byer THY duoidTyTA. xph
yap eomévan TH GAnOelg Tov Témov. Kal yap éxeivo Td cHua Td wey
mpdrepov eldos Exel, Kal oxjpma Kal weprypadhy Kai amratamwAds eimeiv,
Thy Tod céuatos ovolay. aBdvarov dt pera Thy dvdoracw yéyove,
a.T.A. |

a, a

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 107

as though by the nature and substance of the
elements, which are said to remain, Theodoret
had understood the nature and substance of the
accidents (as Cardinal Bellarmine* is pleased to
speak most absurdly): but the whole context doth
strongly refute this gloss ; for Theodoret joins to-
gether nature, substance, form, and figure: and,
indeed, what answer could they have given to the
Kutychian argument, if the substance of the bread
being annihilated after the consecration, the acci-
dents only remain? Or did Christ say concerning
the accidents of the bread and wine, These acci-
dents are, or this accident is, My body? But
(though we have not that liberty, yet) the in-
ventors of transubstantiation may, when they
please, make a creator of a creature, substances
of accidents, accidents of substances, and any
thing out of any thing. But sure they are too
immodest and uncharitable, who, to elude the au-
thority of so famous and so worthy a father as
Theodoret, allege that he was accused of some
errors in the council of Ephesus, though he re-
pented afterwards, as they themselves are forced
to confess. Fain would they, if they could, get
out at this door, when they cannot deny that he
affirmed that the elements remain in their natural
substance, as he wrote in the dialogues which he
composed against the Eutychian heretics, with

* De Eucharistia, ii. 27.

J08 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

.the applause and approbation of the Catholic
Church. And indeed the evidence of this truth
hath compelled some of our adversaries to yield
that Theodoret is of our side: for in the epistle
before the dialogues of Theodoret in the Roman
edition, set forth by Stephen Nicolinus, the pope’s
printer, in the year 1547, it is plainly set down,
‘that in what concerned transubstantiation his
opinion was not very sound; but that he was to
be excused, because the Church (of Rome) had
made no decree about it.’’*

22. With Theodoret we may join Gelasius,+
who (whether he were Bishop of Rome or no), as
Bellarmine confesseth, was of the same age and
opinion as he, and therefore a witness ancient and
credible enough. He wrote against Kutyches and
Nestorius, concerning the two natures in Christ,
in this manner: “ Doubtless the sacrament of the
body and blood of Christ, which we receive, is a
very divine thing, whereby we are made partakers
of the divine nature; and yet it doth not cease to
be bread and wine by substance and nature: and
indeed the image and resemblance of the body
and blood of Christ is celebrated in this mysteri-
ous action. By this, therefore, we see manifestly
enough, that we must believe that to be in Christ
which we believe to be in His sacrament; that as,

* Preef. in Dial. Theod.
+ A.D. 470 or 490, plus minus.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,. 109

by the perfecting virtue of the Holy Ghost, it be-
comes a divine substance, and yet remains in the
propriety of its nature, so this great mystery, the
incarnation, of whose power and efficacy this is a
lively image, doth demonstrate that there is one
entire and true Christ, consisting of two natures,
which yet properly remain unchanged.” * It doth
plainly appear, out of these words, that the change
wrought in the sacrament is not substantial; for,
first, the sanctified elements are so made the body
and blood of Christ, that still they continue to be
by nature bread and wine. Secondly, the bread
and wine retain their natural properties, as also
the two natures in Christ. Lastly, the elements
are said to become a divine substance, because

* De duabus Naturis in Christo. Biblioth. Patrum.
[tom. v. P.3. p. 671. ed. Col. 1618. Certe sacramenta que
sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi divina res est, prop-
ter quod et per eadem divine efficimur consortes nature ; et
tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura panis et vini.
Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi
in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis evi-
denter ostenditur, hoc nobis in ipso Christo Domino senti-
endum, quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus et
sumimus, ut sicut in hane, scilicet in divinam transeant,
Sancto Spiritu perficiente substantiam, permanente tamen
in sue proprietate nature, sic illud ipsum mysterium
principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter
representant: ex quibus constat proprie permanentibus
unum Christum, quia integrum verumque permanere de-
monstrant. |

110 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

. while we receive them, we are made partakers of
the divine nature, by the body and blood of Christ
which are given to us. These things being so,
their blindness is to be deplored, who see not that
they bring again into the Church of Rome the
same error which antiquity piously and learnedly
condemned in the Eutychians. And as for their
threadbare objection to this, “ that by the sub-
stance of bread and wine the true substance itself
is not to be understood, but only the nature and
essence of the accidents,’’* it is a very strange and
very poor shift. There is a great deal more of
commendation due to the ingenuity of Cardinal
Contarenus, who, yielding to the evidence of
truth, answered nothing to this plain testimony
of Gelasius.t

23. Now I add Cyril of Alexandria,+ who

' [* Rite, lector, intellige verba Gelasii; substantiam
panis et vini appellat, non ipsam veram substantiam vocat
naturam et essentiam accidentium que manent in eucha-
ristia, et theologi species vocant, que quia vicem et pro-
prietatem substantiz induunt in nutriendo, &c. quodam-
modo hac etiam ratione substantia dici queunt. Hune
autem morem loquendi non esse alienum a patribus nec
a Gelasio presertim, abunde te docebunt Bellarminus de
Eucharistia, ii. 27; Baronius, in Annal. ad an. 496. ¢. 8.
Vid. Bib. Patr. ibid. not. marg. |

+ In the Colloquy at Ratisbon, a.p. 1541.
{ a.p. 450. Inter Ep. Cyr. in Con. Eph. | This pas-
sage from St. Cyril I have not been able to discover. ]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 111

said, “ that the body and blood of Christ in the
sacrament are received only by a pure faith,” as
we read in that epistle against Nestorius, which
six hundred fathers approved and confirmed in
the council of Chalcedon.* I omit to mention
the other fathers of this age, though many things
in their writings be as contrary to transubstantia-
tion, and the independency of accidents, as any I
have hitherto cited.

24. I come now to the sixth century, about
the middle whereof, Ephrem, patriarch of Antioch,
wrote a book, which was read and commended
by Photius,+ concerning sacred constitutions and
ceremonies, against the Kutychians: therein, that
he might prove the hypostatical union, that in
Christ there is no confusion of natures, but that
each retains its own substance and properties, he
brings the comparison of the sacramental union,
and denies that there should be any conversion
of one substance into another in the sacrament.
** No man,”’ saith he, “ that hath any reason will
say, that the nature of the palpable and impalp-
able, and the nature of the visible and invisible,
is the same. For so the body of Christ, which is
received by the faithful, remains in its own sub-
stance, and yet withal is united to a spiritual
grace: and so baptism, though it becomes wholly

* Coneil. Chal. art. 5.
+ A.D. 540.

a

112 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,

spiritual, yet it loseth not the sensible property of
its substance (that is water), neither doth it cease
to be what it was made by grace.’’*

25. It is not very long since the works of
Facundus, an African bishop, were printed at
Paris; but he lived in the same century.t Now
what his doctrine was against transubstantiation,
as also of the Church in his time, is plainly to be
seen by those words of his, which I here tran-
scribe: ‘‘ The sacrament of adoption may be
called adoption, as the sacrament of the body and
blood of Christ, consecrated in the bread and
wine, is said to be His body and blood ; not that
His body be bread, or His blood wine, but be-
cause the bread and wine are the sacrament of
His body and blood, and therefore so called by
Christ, when He gave them to His disciples.” t

* Photius, Bibliotheca, n. 229. [p. 252. ed. Bekker.
GAN’ oddels by elmeiy Sdvara vodv Exwv ws H ad’Th pias WnrAayrod
kal abnrAaphrov Kal dpatod Kal dopdrov' otrw Kal Td mapa Tay mo-
Tov AapBavduevov GGua Xpiorov Kat ris aicOntIs ovclas ov étic-
Tara. Kal THs vonris ddialperov wéver xdpitos, kal Td Bdwrioua dé
mvevpatixoy drov yevduevoy Kal ev Srdexov, kal 7d Liov Tis aicOnris
ovolas (Tod Hdaros Adyw) Siacw ler kal 6 yéyovey ove &mdrecer. |

+ A.D. 550.

{ Lib. ix.c. 5. [Nam sacramentum adoptionis susce-
pere dignatus est Christus, et quando circumcisus est, et
quando baptizatus est; et potest sacramentum adoptionis
adoptio nuncupari. Sicut sacramentum corporis et san-
guinis ejus, quod est in pane et poculo consecrato, corpus
ejus et sanguinem dicimus. Non quod proprie corpus ejus

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 113

Sirmondus the Jesuit hath writ annotations on
Facundus; but when he came to this place, he
had nothing to say, but that the bread is no bread,
but only the likeness and appearance of bread: an
opinion so unlike that of Facundus, that it should
not have been fathered upon him by a learned and
ingenuous man, as Sirmondus would be thought to
be; for he cannot so much as produce any one of
the ancient fathers that ever made mention of
accidents subsisting without a subject (called by
him, the appearances of bread). And as for his
thinking, “ that some would take the expressions
of Facundus to be somewhat uncouth and ob-
scure,’’* how unjust and injurious it is to that
learned father, may easily be observed by any.
26. Isidore, bishop of Hispal, about the be-
ginning of the seventh century,t wrote thus con-
cerning the sacrament: “ Because the bread
strengthens our body, therefore it is called the
body of Christ; and because the wine is made
blood, therefore the blood of Christ is expressed
by it. Now these two are visible, but yet, being

sit panis et poculum sanguis; sed quod in se mysterium
corporis ejus sanguinisque contineant. Hine et ipse Do-
minus benedictum panem et calicem, quem discipulis tradi-
dit, corpus et sanguinem suum vocavit. |

[* Durius hic fortasse vel obscurius quippiam elocutus
videatur. |

+ A.D. 630.

114 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

sanctified by the Holy Spirit, they become the
sacraments of the Lord’s body: for the bread
which we break is the body of Christ ; who said, I
am the bread of life; and the wine is His blood,
as it is written, I am the true vine.”* Behold,
saith he, they become a sacrament, not the sub-
stance of the Lord’s body; for the bread and
wine which feed our flesh cannot be substantially,
nor be said to be, the body and blood of Christ,
but sacramentally they are so, as certainly as that
they are so called. But this he declares yet more
clearly: ‘“‘ For as the visible substance of bread
and wine nourish the outward man, so the word
of Christ, who is the bread of life, refresheth the
souls of the faithful, being received by faith.’’+
These words were recorded and preserved by

* De Officiis Eccl. [i. 18. Panis enim quem frangi-
mus, corpus Christi est, qui dicit, Ego sum panis vivus,
&ec.: vinum autem sanguis ejus est, et hoe est quod scrip-
tum est, Ego sum vitis vera. Panis quia confirmat corpus,
ideo corpus Christi nuncupatur ; vinum autem quia san-
guinem operatur in carne, ideo ad sanguinem Christi re-
fertur. Hec autem duo sunt visibilia; sanctificata tamen
per Spiritum Sanctum, in sacramentum divini corporis
transeunt. |

+ Etymol. vi. 19. [Panis vero et vinum ideo corpori
et sanguini comparantur, quia sicut hujus visibilis panis
vinique substantia exteriorem nutrit et inebriat hominem,
ita verbum Dei, qui est panis vivus, participatione sui fide-
lium recreat mentes. Ratramnus, § 40. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 115

Bertram the priest, when as in the editions of
Isidore they are now left out.

27. And the same kind of expressions as
those of Isidorus were also used by venerable
Bede our countryman, who lived in the eighth
century,* in his sermon upon the epiphany ;+ of
whom we also take these two testimonies follow-
ing: “In the room of the flesh and blood of the
lamb, Christ substituted the sacrament of His
body and blood, in the figure of bread and wine.” }
Also, “ At supper He gave to His disciples the
figure of His holy body and blood.Ӥ These
utterly destroy transubstantiation.

* A.D. 720.

+ Serm. de Epiph. [inter Opera, vii. 320. ed. Col. 1612.
Lavat itaque nos a peccatis nostris quotidie in sanguine
suo, cum ejusdem beate passionis ad altare memoria repli-
catur, cum panis et vini creatura in sacramentum carnis et
sanguinis ejus ineffabili Spiritus sanctificatione transfertur.
—Hujus recte figuram agnus in lege paschalis ostendit ; qui
seme] populum de Hgyptia liberans, in memoriam ejusdem
liberationis per omnes annos immolatione sua populum
eundem sanctificare solebat, donec veniret ipse cui talis
hostia testimonium dabat, oblatusque Patri pro nobis in
hostiam odoremque suavitatis, mysterium sue passionis
oblato agno in creaturam panis vinique transferret. |

} Com. in Luc. xxii. [Opera, v. 424. Pro carne agni
vel sanguine sue carnis sanguinisque sacramentum in panis
ac vini figura substituens. |

§ Com. in Psal. iii. [Opera, viii. 8324. [Sacratissima

ceena, in qua figuram sacrosancti corporis sanguinisque sui
discipulis tradidit. ]

116 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

28. In the same century Charles the Great*
wrote an epistle to our Alcuinus, wherein we find
these words: “ Christ at supper broke the bread
to His disciples, and likewise gave them the cup,
in figure of His body and blood; and so left to us
this great sacrament for our benefit.”’+ If it was
the figure of His body, it could not be the body
itself; indeed the body of Christ is given in the
eucharist, but to the faithful only, and that by
means of the sacrament of the consecrated bread.

29. But now, about the beginning of the ninth
century, started up Paschasius,t a monk of Corbie,
who first (as some say, whose judgment I follow
not) among the Latins, taught that Christ was
consubstantiated, or rather enclosed in the bread
and corporally united to it in the sacrament ;§ for
as yet there was no thoughts of the transubstan-
tiation of bread. But these new sorts of expres-

* ADs 718.

[+ Alcuini Opera, p. 1150. ed. Paris, 1617, or i. 89. ed.
1777. Redemptor omnium ccenando cum discipulis panem
fregit et calicem pariter dedit eis, in figuram corporis et
sanguinis sui, nobisque profecturum magnum exhibuit
sacramentum. |

{ A.pD. 818.

[§ In his book, De Corpore et Sanguine Domini. In
ch. i. he says: Licet figura panis et vini hic sit, omnino
nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecra-
tionem credenda sunt. Though nearly approaching, this
expression hardly amounts to the Roman doctrine of tran-
substantiation. ]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 117

sions, not agreeing with the Catholic doctrine and
the writings of the ancient fathers, had few or
no abettors before the eleventh century; and in
the ninth, whereof we now treat, there were not
wanting learned men (as Amalarius, archdeacon
of Triars; Rabanus, at first abbot of Fulda, and
afterwards archbishop of Mentz; John Erigena,
an English divine ; Walafridus Strabo, a German
abbot; Ratramus or Bertramus, first priest of
Corbie, afterwards abbot of Orbec in France; and
many more), who by their writings opposed this
new opinion of Paschasius, or of some others
rather, and delivered to. posterity the doctrine of
the ancient Church. Yet we have something more
to say concerning Paschasius ; whom Bellarmine*
and Sirmondust esteemed so highly, that they
were not ashamed to say that he was the first
that had writ to the purpose concerning the eu-
charist, and that he had so explained the mean-
ing of the Church, that he had shewn and opened
the way to all them who treated of that subject
after him. Yet in that whole book of Paschasius
there is nothing that favours the transubstantia-
tion of the bread, or its destruction or removal.
Indeed, he asserts the truth of the body and blood
of Christ’s being in the eucharist, which Protestants
deny not; he denies that the consecrated bread

* De Scriptoribus Eccles. in Paschasio.
+ In vita Paschasii, edit. Paris. prefixa.

118 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

is a bare figure, a representation void of truth,
which Protestants assert not. But he hath many
things repugnant to transubstantiation, which, as I
have said, the Church of Rome itself has not yet
quite found out. I shall mention a few of them.
“ Christ,” saith he, “ left us this sacrament, a
visible figure and character of His body and blood,
that by them our spirit might the better embrace
spiritual and invisible things, and be more fully
fed by faith.” Again; ‘“* We must receive our
spiritual sacraments with the mouth of the soul
and the taste of faith.” Item; “ Whilst therein
we savour nothing carnal; but we, being spiritual,
and understanding the whole spiritually, we re-
main in Christ.” And a little after; “ The flesh
and blood of Christ are received spiritually.”’ And
again; “* To savour according to the flesh is
death, and yet to receive spiritually the true flesh
of Christ is life eternal.” Lastly ; “‘'The flesh and
blood of Christ are not received carnally, but spi-
ritually.”* In these he teacheth, that the mystery

[* Ch, 2. Diligenter ergo intelligere et spiritualia sacra-
menta palato mentis et gustu fidei digne percipere.— Ib.
Neque itaque sinit terrenum aliquid aut vile ibidem suspi-
cari, sed mystica et spiritualia in his sapere.—Ch. 3. Quo
nimirum vegetati gustu ad immortalia et eterna prepa-
remur, quatenus spiritualiter jam angelica gratia saginati

in eo vivificemur.—Ch. 4. Per eundem [Spiritum] ex sub-

stantia panis ac vini mystice idem Christi corpus et sanguis

5 abet”

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 119

of the Lord’s supper is not, and ought not to be,
understood carnally, but spiritually ; and that this
dream of corporal and oral transubstantiation was
unknown to the ancient Church. As for what
hath been added to this book by the craft (with-
out doubt) of some superstitious forger (as Eras-
mus complains that it too frequently happens to
the writings of the ancients), it is fabulous; as the
visible appearing of the body of Christ, in the form

consecratur. De qua videlicet carne ac sanguine, Amen,
Amen, inquit, dico vobis, nisi manducaveritis carnem filii
hominis et biberitis ejus sanguinem, non habebitis vitam
eternam in vobis. Ubi profecto non aliam quam veram
carnem dicit et verum sanguinem, licet mystice. Unde
quia mysticum est sacramentum, nec figuram illud negare
possumus.—Ib. Reliquit nobis hoc sacramentum, visibilem
figuram et characterem carnis et sanguinis, ut per hee
mens nostra et caro nostra ad invisibilia et spiritualia ca-
pessenda per fidem uberius nutriatur. Est autem figura
vel character hoc quod exterius sentitur, sed totum veritas
et nulla adumbratio, quod intrinsecus percipitur.—Ch. 5.
Christus ergo cibus est angelorum, et sacramentum hoc vere
caro ipsius et sanguis, quam spiritualiter manducat et bibit
homo: ae per hoc unde vivunt angeli, vivit et homo, quia
totum spirituale est et divinum in eo quod percipit homo.
—Nos autem dum nihil carnale in eo sapimus, imo spiri-
tuales totum spiritualiter intelligentes, in Christo mane-
mus.—Caro Christi et sanguis sumitur spiritualiter.—Bibi-
mus quoque et nos spiritualiter, ac comedimus spiritualem
Christi carnem, in qua vita eterna esse creditur. Alioquin
Sapere secundum carnem mors est: et tamen veram Christi
carnem spiritualiter percipere vita eterna est. |

120 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

of an infant with fingers of raw flesh; such stuff is
unworthy to be fathered on Paschasius, who pro-
fessed that he delivered no other doctrine con-
cerning the sacrament than that which he had
learned out of the ancient fathers, and not from
idle and uncertain stories of miracles.

30. Now it may be requisite to produce the
testimony of those writers before mentioned to
have written in this century.* “In all that I
write,’ saith Amalarius, “I am swayed by the
judgment of holy men and pious fathers; yet I say
what I think myself. Those things that are done
in the celebration of divine service are done in the
sacrament of the passion of our Lord as He Him-
self commanded: therefore the priest, offering the
bread with the wine and water in the sacrament,
doth it in the stead of Christ; and the bread, wine,
and water in the sacrament represent the flesh
and blood of Christ; for sacraments are some-
what to resemble those things whereof they are
sacraments. Therefore let the priest be like unto
Christ, as the bread and liquors are like the body
and blood of Christ. Such is in some manner the
immolation of the priest on the altar, as was that
of Christ on the cross.” Again; “The sacrament
of the body of Christ is in some manner the body
of Christ; for sacraments should not be sacra-
ments, if in some things they had not the likeness

* a.D. 830.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 121

of that whereof they are sacraments: now, by
reason of this mutual likeness, they oftentimes
are called by what they represent. Lastly ; sacra-
ments have the virtue to bring us to those things
whereof they are sacraments.”* These things
writ Amalarius, according to the expressions of
St. Austin, and the doctrine of the purest Church.

31. Rabanus Maurus, a great doctor of this
age,t who could hardly be matched either in Italy
or in Germany, published this his open con-
fession: ‘‘ Our blessed Saviour would have the
sacrament of His body and blood to be received
by the mouth of the faithful, and to become their
nourishment, that by the visible body the effects
of the invisible might be known: for as the ma-
terial food feeds the body outwardly and makes it

* De Ecclesiast. Officiis, i. in Pref. [in Biblioth. Patr.
ix. p. 301. In omnibus que scribo suspendor virorum
sanctorum atque piorum patrum judicio: interim dico
que sentio. Que aguntur in celebratione misse, in
sacramento Dominice passionis aguntur; ut ipse preece-
pit, dicens: Hac quotiescumque feceritis, in met memoriam
facietis. Idcirco presbyter immolans panem et vinum et
aquam in sacramento est Christi; panis, vinum et aqua in
sacramento carnis Christi et ejus sanguinis. Sacramenta
debent habere similitudinem aliquam earum rerum, qua-
rum sacramenta sunt. Quapropter similis sit sacerdos
Christo, sicut panis et liquor similia sunt corpori Christi, ©
Sic est immolatio sacerdotis in altari quodammodo ut
Christi immolatio in cruce. |

T A.D. 825,

G

122 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

to grow, so the word of God doth inwardly nour-
ish and strengthen the soul.” Also; “ He would
have the sacramental elements to be made of the
fruits of the earth, that as He, who is God in-
visible, appeared visible in our flesh, and mortal
to save us mortals, so He might by a thing visible
fitly represent to us a thing invisible. Some re-
ceive the sacred sign at the Lord’s table to their
salvation, and some to their ruin; but the thing
signified is life to every man, and death to none.
Whoever receives it, is united as a member to
Christ the Head in the kingdom of heaven; for
the sacrament is one thing, and the efficacy of it
another; for the sacrament is received with the
mouth, but the grace thereof feeds the inward
man. And as the first is turned into our sub-
stance when we eat it and drink it, so are we
made the body of Christ when we live piously
and obediently. Therefore the faithful do well
and truly receive the body of Christ, if they
neglect not to be His members; and they are
made the body of Christ, if they will live of His —
Spirit.”* All these agree not in the least with —

* Trithem. de Script. Eccl. Rabanus Maur. de Inst. —
Cler. 1. i. ec. 31. [Maluit enim Dominus corporis et san-
guinis sui sacramenta fidelium ore percipietinpastumeorum _
redigi, ut per visibile opus invisibilis ostenderetur effectus.
Sic enim cibus materialis forinsecus nutrit corpus et vege-
tat, ita etiam verbum Dei intus animam nutrit et roborat,

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 123

the new doctrine of Rome, and as little with that
opinion they attribute to Paschasius; and there-
fore he is rejected as erroneous by some Romish
authors, who writ four and six hundred years after
him :* but they should have considered that.they
condemned not only Rabanus, but together with
him all the doctors of the primitive Church.

32. Johannes Erigena, our countryman t
(whom King Alfred took to be his and his children’s
tutor, and to credit the new-founded University of

quia non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo quod
procedit de ore Dei.—Quod autem ex terre fructibus voluit
hee. sacramenta confici, hee ratio est: ut sicut ipse Deus
invisibilis in carne visibili ad salvandos mortales mortalis
apparuit, ita etiam ex materia visibili rem invisibilem
congrue ipsis demonstravit.— Unitas corporis et sanguinis
Christi de mensa Dominica assumitur quibusdam ad vitam,
quibusdam ad exitium: res vero ipsa omni homini ad vitam,
nulli ad exitium. Quicumque enim ejus particeps fuerit, id
est, Christo capiti membrum associatus fuerit in regno
ceelesti, quia aliud est sacramentum, aliud virtus sacramenti;
sacramentum enim ore percipitur, virtute sacramenti inte-
rior homo satiatur.—Sicut ergo in nos id convertitur, cum
id manducamus et bibimus, sic et nos in corpus Christi
convertimur, dum obedienter et pie vivimus.—Ergo fideles
bene et veraciter corpus Christi, si corpus Christi non
negligant esse; fiunt corpus ricaahie si volunt vivere de
Spiritu Christi. 7

* William of Malmsbury, a.p. 1200; and Thomas
Waldensis, A.D. 1400. [ Doctrinalis, ii. 61.]

+ A.D. 860.

?

124 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Oxford), while he lived in France, where he was
in great esteem with Charles the Bald, wrote a
book* concerning the body and blood of our
Lord, to the same purpose as Rabanus, .and
backed it with clear testimonies of Scripture and
of the holy fathers. But entering himself into the
monastery of Malmsbury, as he was interpreting
the book of Dionysius about the heavenly hier-
archy (which he translated into Latin), and withal
censuring the newly hatched doctrine of the car-
nal presence of Christ in the eucharist, he was
stabbed with penknivest by some unworthy scho-
lars of his, set on by certain monks; though not
long after he was by some others{ numbered
among holy martyrs.

33. Walafridus Strabo, about the same time,§
wrote on this manner; ‘ Therefore in that last
supper whereat Christ was with His disciples be-
fore He was betrayed, after the solemnities of the
ancient passover, He gave to His disciples the
sacrament of His body and blood in the substance
of bread and wine; and instructed us to pass from

* That book was afterwards condemned under Leo IX.,
two hundred years after, by the maintainers of transubstan-
tiation. |

+ Anton. tit. c. 2. § 3. Vincentii [Speculum], xxiv. 42,
et alii. |This is a very suspicious tale. |

{ Malmsbury De Gestis Reg. Angl. 1. ii. [4.]

§ a.D. 860. :

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 125

carnal to spiritual things, from earthly to hea-
venly things, and from shadows to the sub-
stance.”’*

34. As for the opinion of Bertram,t} other-
wise called Ratramnus or Ratramus, perhaps not
rightly, it is known enough by that book which
the Emperor Charles the Bald (who loved and
honoured him, as all good men did, for his great
learning and piety) commanded him to write con-
cerning the body and blood of our Lord. For
when men began to be disturbed at the book of
Paschasius, some saying one thing, and some an-
other, the emperor, being moved by their disputes,
propounded himself two questions to Bertram :—
1. Whether what the faithful eat in the church
be made the body and blood of Christ in figure
and in mystery? 2. Or whether that natural
body which was born of the Virgin Mary, which
suffered, died, and was buried, and now sitteth
on the right hand of God the Father, be itself

* De Rebus Eccl. c. 16. [In cena siquidem, quam ante
traditionem suam ultimam cum discipulis habuit, post
pasche veteris solemnia, corporis et sanguinis sui sacra-
menta in panis et vini substantia discipulis tradidit.—Ipse
in carne adveniens illis [sc. legis sacrificiis] majora in-
stituit, et a carnalibus ad spiritalia, a terrenis ad ccelestia,
a temporalibus ad eterna, ab imperfectis ad perfecta, ab
umbra ad corpus, ab imaginibus ad veritatem docuit
transeundum. |

+ Priest and abbot, a.p. 860.

1296 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

daily received by the mouth of the faithful in the
mystery of the sacrament? The first of these

Bertram resolved affirmatively, the second nega- —

tively; and said, that there was as great a differ-
ence betwixt those two bodies, as betwixt the ear-
nest and that whereof it is the earnest. ‘It is
evident,’ saith he, “ that that bread and wine
are figuratively the body and blood of Christ.
According to the substance of the elements, they
are after the consecration what they were before ;
for the bread is not Christ substantially. If this
mystery be not done in a figure, it cannot well be
called a mystery. The wine also, which is made
the sacrament of the blood of Christ by the con-
secration of the priest, shews one thing by its
outward appearance, and combines another in-
wardly; for what is there visible in its outside
but only the substance of the wine? These things
are changed, but not according to the material
part; and by this change they are not what they
truly appear to be, but are something else besides
what is their proper being. For they are made
spiritually the body and blood of Christ; not that

the elements. be two different things, but in one
respect they are, as they appear, bread and wine,
and in another the body and blood of Christ. —

Hence, according to the visible creature, they

feed the body; but according to the virtue of a
more excellent substance, they nourish and sanc- —

:

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 127

tify the souls of the faithful.” Then having brought
many testimonies of holy Scripture and the an-
cient fathers to confirm this, he at last presents
that calumny which the followers of Paschasius
did then lay on the orthodox, as though they had
taught that bare signs, figures, and shadows, and
not the body and blood of Christ, were given in
the sacrament. “ Let it not be thought,” saith
he, “ because we say this, that therefore the body
and blood of Christ are not received in the mystery
of the sacrament, where faith apprehends what it
believes, and not what the eyes see; for this meat
and drink are spiritual, feed the soul spiritually,
and entertain that life whose fulness is eternal.”’*

[* Si enim nulla sub figura mysterium illud peragitur,
jam mysterium non recte vocitatur; quoniam mysterium
dici non potest, in quo nihil est abditum.—At ille panis,
qui per sacerdotis ministerium Christi corpus conficitur,
alind exterius humanis sensibus ostendit, et aliud interius
fidelium mentibus clamat. Exterius quidem panis quod
ante fuerat :—ast interius longe aliud. §. 9.—Vinum quo-
que quod sacerdotali consecratione Christi sanguinis effici-
tur sacramentum, aliud superficie tenus ostendit, aliud
interius continet. Quid enim aliud in superficie quam
substantia vini conspicitur?—Hec ita esse dum nemo potest
abnegare claret, quia panis ille vinumque figurate Christi
corpus et sanguis existit. §. 10.—Ex his omnibus que sunt
hactenus dicta, monstratum est, quod corpus et sanguis
Christi, que fidelium ore in ecclesia percipiuntur, figure
sunt secundum speciem visibilem. At vero secundum
invisibilem substantiam, id est, divini potentiam Verbi,

128 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

For the question is not simply about the real
truth, or the thing signified being present, with-
out which it could not be a mystery, but about
the false reality of things subsisting in imaginary
efficaciousness, and about the carnal presence.
30. All this the fathers of Trent and the
Romish inquisitors could not brook, and therefore
they utterly condemned Bertram, and put his
book in the catalogue of them that are forbidden.*
But the professors of Douay judging this pro-
ceeding much too violent, and therefore more like
to hurt than to advance the Roman cause, went
another and more cunning way to work, and had
the approbation of the licensers of books, and
the authors of the Belgic Index Expurgatorius. ft

vere corpus et sanguis Christi existunt. Unde secundum
visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt, juxta vero potentioris
virtutem substantie fidelium mentes pascunt et sanctifi-
cant. §. 49. Secundum creaturarum substantiam, quod
fuerunt ante consecrationem, hoc et postea consistunt. §. 54.
Nec ideo quoniam ista dicimus putetur in mysterio sacra-
menti corpus Domini, vel sanguinem ipsius non a fidelibus
sumi, quando fides, non quod oculus videt, sed quod credit
accipit, quoniam spiritualis est esca, et spiritualis potus,
spiritualiter animam pascens, et eterne satietatis vitam
tribuens.| Ratramnus de Corpore et S. Domini.

* Index Librorum prohibitorum in fine Concil. Trident.
authoritate Pape editus, in lit. B.

+ Index Expurg. Belg. jussu et authoritate Philip. II.
Hisp. Regis atque Albani Ducis concilio concin. p. 54. v.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 129

**That book of Bertram,” say they, “ having been
already printed several times, read by many, and
known to all by its being forbidden, may be suf-
fered and used after it is corrected; for Bertram
was a Catholic priest, and a monk in the monas-
tery of Corley, esteemed and beloved by Charles
the Bald. And seeing we bear with many errors
in ancient Catholic authors, and lessen and excuse
them, and by some cunning device” (behold the
good men’s fidelity !) ‘‘ often deny them, and give
a more commodious sense, when they are objected
to us in our disputes with our adversaries; we do
not see why Bertram should not also be amended,
and used with the like equity, lest heretics cast
us in the teeth that we burn and suppress those
records of antiquity that make for them: and as
we also fear lest. not only heretics, but also stub-
born Catholics, read the book with the more
greediness, and like it with the more confidence,
because it is forbidden, and so it doth more harm
by being prohibited than if it were left free.”
What patch then will they sew to amend this in
Bertram? ‘ Those things that differ are not the
same; that body of Christ which died and rose
again, and is become immortal, dies no more,
being eternal and impassible; but that which is

Bertram. [I have not been able to obtain a sight of this
book. The passage in the text is quoted in Aubertine’s
celebrated treatise De Eucharistia, p. 930. ed. 1654.]

G2

130 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

celebrated in the Church is temporal, not eternal;
is corruptible, and not incorruptible.’”’*

To this last-mentioned passage they give a very
commodious sense, namely, “ that it should be
understood of the corruptible species of the sacra-
ment, or of the sacrament itself, and the use of it,
which will last no longer than this world.” If
this will not do, it may not be amiss to leave it
all out; to blot out visibly, and write invisibly.
And this, “ What the creatures were in substance
before the consecration, they are still the same
after it,” must be understood according to “ the
outward appearance,” that is, “ the accidents of
the bread and wine.” Though they confess that
“then Bertram knew nothing of those accidents
subsisting without a substance, and many other
things which this latter age hath added out of the
Scripture with as great truth as subtlety.” How
much easier had it been at one stroke to blot out
the whole book! and so make short work with it,
as the Spanish inquisitors{ did in their Index

[* Que a se differunt idem non sunt: corpus Christi
quod mortuum est, et resurrexit et immortale factum,
“¢ jam non moritur,”—eeternum est, nec jam passibile; hoc
autem quod in ecclesia celebratur temporale est non eeter-
num, corruptibile est non incorruptum. Ib. §. 76.]

[+ Quoted above. ]

{ Index Expurg. Hispan. D. Gasp. Quiroge Card.

et Inquisit. generalis in fine. [There is a copy of one
edition of this Index in the British Museum, but I cannot

- HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 131

Expurgatorius. ‘ Let the whole epistle,” say
they, “ of Udalricus, bishop of Augsburg, be blot-
- ted out, concerning the single life of the clergy ;
and let the whole book of Bertram the priest about
the body and blood of Christ be suppressed.”’
What is this but, as Arnobius* said against the
heathen, “ to intercept public records, and fear
the testimony of the truth ?”’ For as for that which
Sixtus Senensist and Possevin affirm, that that
book of the body and blood of the Lord was writ
by Gkcolampadius under the name of Bertram, it
is so great an untruth that a greater cannot be
found.

36. We are now come to the tenth century,
wherein, besides those many sentences of catholic
fathers against innovators in what concerns the
body and blood of Christ, collected by Herigerus
Abbas Lobiensis,{ we have also an ancient Easter
homily in Saxon-English,§ which then used to be

find the passage to which Dr. Cosins refers, The other
Index to which he refers is not to be found in the British
Museum, Bishop Tennison’s library, or Sion College. |

* Lib. iii. [Intercipere scripta, et veritatis testifica-
tionem timere. Bib. Patrum, i. 173.]

+ Sixtus Senensis, pref. in Bibl. Sanctam; et Pos-
sevinus in prolegomena Appar. Sacri.

{ a.p. 980. [Lobium, or rather Laubium, a celebrated
monastery belonging to the diocese of Cambray, situated
on the river Sambre, between Hainau and Liege. |

§ Hom. Pasc. Angl, Sax. a.p. 990. Printed at London

>

132 _ HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

read publicly in our churches; out of which we
may gather what was then the doctrine received
amongst us touching this point of religion, but
chiefly out of that part wherein are shewn many
differences betwixt the natural body of Christ
and the consecrated host. For thus it teacheth
the people; “ There is a great difference betwixt
that body wherein Christ suffered, and that where-
in the host is consecrated. That body wherein
Christ suffered was born of the Virgin Mary,
consisting of blood and bones, skin and nerves,
human members, and a rational soul; but His
spiritual body, which we call the host, is made
of many united grains of corn, and hath neither
blood nor bones, neither members nor soul.”
Afterwards; “ The body of Christ, which once
died and rose again, shall die no more, but remains
eternal and impassible; but this host is temporal
and corruptible, divided into parts, broken with
the teeth, and swallowed down into the stomach.
Lastly, this mystery is a pledge and a figure.
The body of Christ is that very truth: what is

[1623], and in MS. in publ. Cant. Acad. Bib. [The ori-
ginal, and a translation of this homily, are given in Foxe’s
Martyrs, ii. 450, ed. 1641. But some important passages
have been omitted near the middle of the homily by the
martyrologist ; as may be seen by comparing the printed
copies with a very fine MS. preserved in the British
Museum. |

a

ee ee ee ee ee

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 133

seen is bread, but what is spiritually understood
is life.’ There is also another sermon of Bishop
Wulfinus to the clergy, bearing the title of a
synod of priests,* wherein the same opinion and
doctrine is explained in this manner; “ That host
is the body of Christ, not corporally, but spirit-
ually; not that body wherein He suffered, but
that body whereof He spake, when He conse-
crated the bread and wine into an host.” Which
to this day, in the Church of England, we hold
to be a catholic truth.

37. And so hitherto we have produced the
agreeing testimonies of ancient fathers for a thou-
sand years after Christ, and have transcribed them
more at large, to make it appear to every one
that is not blind, that the true apostolic doctrine
of this mystery hath been universally maintained
for so long by all men; some few excepted, who,
more than eight hundred years after Christ, pre-
sumed to dispute against the ancient orthodox
doctrine of the manner of Christ’s presence, and
of His being received in the sacrament, though
they durst not positively determine any thing
against it. Now, what more concerns this point
we refer to the next chapter, lest this should be
too long.

* Homil. Sacerd. Synod., printed at London; cum
Homil. Paschali [printed in Foxe, ii. 448].

>

134 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

CHAPTER VI.

Shews more at large that the doctrine and practice of the
primitive Church is ineonsistent with transubstantiation,
and answers the Romish objections vainly alleged out of
antiquity.

1. Many more proofs out of ancient records
might have been added to those we have hitherto
brought, for a thousand years; but we, desiring
to be brief, have omitted them in each century.
As in the first, after the holy Scriptures, the
works of Clemens Romanus, commended by the
papists themselves, and those of St. Ignatius,
bishop of Antioch and martyr, are much against
transubstantiation.* In the second likewise, St.
Theophilus, fourth bishop of Antioch after Igna-
tius ; Athenagoras and Tatianus, scholars to Justin
Martyr. In the third, Clemens Alexandrinus,
tutor to Origen; and Minutius Felix, a Christian
orator. In the fourth, Eusebius bishop of Cesarea,
Juvencus a Spanish priest, Macarius Aigyptius, —
St. Hilary bishop of Poictiers, Optatus bishop
of Milevis, Eusebius Emissenus, Gregorius Na-

[* The passages to which reference is made in the com-
mencement of this chapter are, for avoiding confusion,
printed in the Appendix. ]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 135

zianzenus, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Epiphanius Sa-
- laminensis, St. Hierom, Theophilus Alexandrinus,
and Gaudentius bishop of Brixia. In the fifth,
Sedulius a Scotch priest, Gennadius Massiliensis,
and Faustus bishop of Regium. In the sixth,
Fulgentius Africanus, Victor Antiochenus, Prima-
sius bishop, and Procopius Gazeus. In the
seventh, Hesychius priest in Jerusalem, and
Maximus abbot of Constantinople. In the eighth,
Johannes Damascenus. In the ninth, Nicepho-
rus the patriarch, and Hincmarus archbishop of
Rheims. Lastly, in the tenth, Fulbert bishop of
Chartres. And, to complete all, to these single
fathers we may add whole’ councils of them; as
that of Ancyra, of Neocesarea, and besides the
first of Nice, which I have mentioned, that of
Laodicea, of Carthage, of Orleans, the fourth of
Toledo, that of Bracara, the sixteenth of Toledo,
and that of Constantinople in Trullo. Out of all
these appears most certain, that the infection of
the doctrine of transubstantiation was not yet
spread over the Christian world; but that the
sound doctrine of the body and blood of Christ,
and of their true (yet spiritual, not carnal) pre-
sence in the eucharist, with the elements, still the
same in substance after consecration, was every-
where owned and maintained. And though the
fathers used both ways of speaking (that is, that
the bread and wine are the true body and blood

136 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

“of Christ, and that, their substance still remain-
ing, they are signs, types, resemblances, and ~
pledges of them, images, figures, similitudes, re-
presentations, and samplers of them), yet there
was no contrariety or diversity in the sense. For
they were not so faithless as to believe, that these
are only natural elements, or bare signs; and
they were not of so gross and so dull an appre-
hension as not to distinguish betwixt the sacra-
mental and mystic, and the carnal and natural
presence of Christ, as it is now maintained by the
patrons of transubstantiation. For in this they
understood no other change than that which is
common to all sacraments, whereby the outward
natural part is said to be changed into the inward
and divine, only because it represents it truly and
efficaciously, and makes all worthy receivers par-
takers thereof; and because, by the virtue of the
Holy Spirit, and of Christ’s holy institution, the
elements obtain those divine excellencies and pre-
rogatives, which they cannot have of their own
nature. And this is it which was taught and
believed, for above a thousand years together, by
pious and learned antiquity concerning this most
holy mystery.

2. There are also some other things whereby
we may understand that the ancients did not be-
lieve transubstantiation, or that the presence of
the body and blood of Christ is so inseparably

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 137

tied to the accidents of bread and wine, that
Christ must needs be present as long as those
accidents retain any resemblance of bread and
wine, even when they are not put to that use
appointed by divine institution. For it is certain
that it was the custom of many of the ancients “ to
burn what remained of the bread and wine after
the communion was ended :””* and who can believe
that any Christian should dare or be willing to
burn his Lord and Saviour, in body and blood,
though it were never so much in his power?
Doubtless it would have been as horrid and de-
testable an action as was that of the perfidious
Jews, for Christians, if they believed transubstan-
tiation, to burn that very natural body which the
Jews crucified, and which was born of the Virgin
Mary. Therefore those Christians who used an-
ciently to burn those fragments of the bread, and
remains of the wine, which were not spent in the
celebration of the sacrament, were far enough from
holding the present faith and doctrine of Rome.
The same appears further by the penalty threatened

* a.p. 600. Hesychius in Levit. ii. 8. [Quod reli-
quum est de carnibus et panibus in igne incendi precepit.
Quod nune videmus etiam sensibiliter in ecclesia fieri,
ignique tradi queecumque remanere contigerit inconsumpta.
Biblioth. Patrum, tom. vii. p. 35, ed. 1618.] Spelman’s
Concilia Angl. tredecimus inter eos qui Bede titulum

preferunt, a.p. 700, et sub Edgaro Rege, [can.] 38. A.D.
970 [p. 452].

138 © HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

. by the canon to every clergyman “ by whose ne-
glect a mouse or any other creature should eat the
sacrifice ”* (that is, the consecrated bread). And
who but an idiot, a man deprived of his reason,
could ever believe that the natural body of Christ
can be gnawed and even eaten by rats, or any
brute creatures? This sorely perplexed the first
maintainers of transubstantiation, who would in-
vent any thing rather than own it possible, well
knowing how abominable it is, and how dishon-
ourable to Christian religion. Yet this is not
inconsistent with the now Roman faith; nay, it
necessarily follows from the tenet of transubstan-
tiation, that the body of Christ may be in the
belly of a mouse under the accidents of bread.t

* Cone. Arel. 3. A.D. 640. cit. a Gratiano de Consecr.
dist. 2. [Qui bene non custodierit sacrificium, ut mus vel
aliud aliquod animal illud comederit, xl. diebus poeniteat. ]

+ Alex. de Ales. p. iv. q. 45. m. 1. art. 2. et q. 53. m. 3.
[see below, vii. § 24.] Thom. in 3. q. 80. art. 3. [Dicen-
dum quod etiamsi mus vel canis hostiam consecratam
manducet, substantia corporis Christi non desinit esse sub
speciebus, quamdiu species ille manent: hoe est quam-
diu substantia panis maneret, sicut etiam si projiceretur in
lutum. Nec hoe vergit in detrimentum dignitatis corporis
Christi, qui voluit a peccatoribus crucifigi absque diminu-
tione sue dignitatis: preesertim cum mus aut canis non
tangat ipsum corpus Christi secundum propriam speciem,
sed solum secundum species sacramentales. Quidam autem
dixerunt, quod statim cum sacramentum tangitur a mure
vel cane, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi. Quod etiam —

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 139

And the contrary opinion is not only disowned
now by the papists, but, under pain of excommu-
nication, forbidden by the pope ever to be owned ;*
so that they must believe as an article of faith
what is most abhorrent to faith.+

3. But yet, at last, let us see what props these
new builders pretend to borrow from antiquity to
uphold their castle in the air, transubstantiation.
They use indeed to scrape together many testi-
monies of the fathers of the first and middle age,
whereby they would fain prove that those fathers

derogat veritati sacramenti, sicut supra dictum est.] Et in
4, d. ix. q. 2. |

* Greg. XI. in Director. Inquis. p. 1. n. 15, et p. 2.
q. 10. [as quoted in Vasquez, below. |

+ Vasq. disp. 195. in 3. ¢.5. [Hoe est contra commu-
nem sensum ecclesize, que species e loco sordido erutas
tanquam verum sacramentum veneraretur, sicut etiamsi
a bestia sumpte evomerentur. Porro autem Christum
semper esse sub speciebus, communis schole opinio fuit,
ut paulo inferius videbimus. Imo et Gregorius XI. in
Directorio Inquisitorum (p. ii. q. 10.) damnavit predictam
sententiam quam ex Bonaventura retulimus ; nempe, asse-
rentes sub hostia consecrata projecta in lutum aut locum
sordidum non manere corpus Christi, nedum corruptis
speciebus. p. 272.—Utrumque tamen damnatum est per
Gregorium XI. in Directorio Inquisitorum (p. ii. queest. 10.)
nempe, et quod desinat corpus Christi esse sub speciebus
simul atque ab aliquo bruto animante sumitur; et simi-
liter, quod dum dentibus justi aut peccatoris species con-
teruntur, Christus ad ccelum rapitur, ne videlicet in ven-
trem vadat, ut docuit Bonaventura. p. 273. |

140 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

* believed and taught the transubstantiation of the
bread and wine into the natural body and blood
of Christ, just as the Roman Church at this day
doth teach and believe. We will therefore briefly
examine them, that it may yet more fully appear
that antiquity and all fathers did not in the least
favour the new tenet of transubstantiation ; but

that that true doctrine, which I have set down in
the beginning of this book, was constantly owned
and preserved in the Church of Christ.

4. Now, almost all that they produce out of
the fathers will be conveniently reduced to certain
heads, that we may not be too tedious in answer-
ing each testimony by itself. |

Answer to the allegations out of Ireneus, Origen,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, St.
Jerome, St. Austin, and others. ‘4

d. To the first head belong those that call the
eucharist the body and blood of Christ. But I
answer, those fathers explain themselves in many
places, and interpret those their expressions in
such a manner, that they must be understood in
a mystic and spiritual sense, in that sacraments
usually take the names of those things they re-
present, because of that resemblance which they
have with them; “ not by the reality of the thing,
but by the signification of the mystery,”’* as we

* De Consecr. dist. 2. ¢. Sicut. [?]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 141]

have shewn before out of St. Austin and others.*
For nobody can deny but that the things that
are seen are signs and figures, and those that are
not seen, the body and blood of Christ; and that
therefore the nature of this mystery is such, that
when we receive the bread and wine, we also,
together with them, receive at the same time the
body and blood of Christ, which in the celebra-
tion of the holy eucharist are as truly given as
they are represented. Hence came into the
Church this manner of speaking,—the consecrated
bread is Christ’s body.

An answer to the proofs out of St. Hierom and
St. Ambrose.

6. We put in the second rank those places
that say, that the bishops and priests make the
body of Christ with the sacred words of their
mouth, as St. Hierom speaks in his epistle to
Heliodorus,t and St. Ambrose,{ and others. To

[* See page 102.]

[+ Apostolico gradui succedentes [clerici], Christi cor-
pus sacro ore conficiunt ; per quos et nos Christiani sumus.
Epist. i. alias v. in ed. Bened. |

[Quum apostolus perspicue doceat eosdem esse presby-
teros quos episcopos, quis patiatur mensarum et viduarum
minister, ut supra eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces
Christi corpus sangyisque conficitur?] Epist. ad Evagrium.
[ Evangelium, 85 = 101. |

[{ Probemus non hoe esse [corpus] quod natura for-
mavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit; majoremque vim

142 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

, this I say, that at the prayer and blessing of the
priest the common bread is made sacramental
bread, which, when broken and eaten, is the
communion of the body of Christ, and therefore
may well be called so sacramentally. For the
bread (as I have often said before) doth not only
represent the body of our Lord, but also, being
received, we are truly made partakers of that pre-
cious body. -For so saith St. Hierom, “ The
body and blood of Christ is made at the prayer
of the priest ;” that is, the element is so qualified,
that being received it becomes the communion of
the body and blood of Christ, which it could not
without the preceding prayers. The Greeks call
this, “ to prepare and to consecrate the body of
the Lord.”’ As St.Chrysostom saith well,* “ These
are not the works of man’s power, but still the

esse benedictionis quam nature, quia benedictione etiam
natura ipsa mutatur. § 52. tantum valuit humana bene-
dictio, ut naturam converteret, &c. De Mysteriis, ch. ix.
See also above, v. §. 17.]

* Hom. 83, in St. Matt. [The only passage which I
ean find in this homily at all resembling the passage in the
text, is the following: éo7Tw kal Aoyicudy Kal Tews Kupidbrepos
avtov 6 Adyos. obtw Kal ér) Tov uvoTnplov ToLBuer, ov Tors Kel-
uévors pdvov euBd€movtes, AAG TH Phuata avtod Karéxovres. 6
pev yap Adyos avTov amapardyioros, H 58 aloOnots tyuav edetamdrn-
Tos.—érel obv 6 Adyos pnal, rodTd eat Td THud pov, kad weOducOa,
Tom. vii. p. 787. But in the 24th of the homilies on the
ist Epistle to the Corinthians several passages occur similar —
to that in the text. | : E

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 143

operation of Him, who made them in the last
supper: as for us, we are only ministers, but He
it is that sanctifies and changeth them.”

An answer to what is cited out of St. Cyprian,
Ambrose, both the Cyrils, Chrysostom, Gregory
of Nyssa, and others.

. 7. In the third place, to what is brought out
of the fathers concerning the conversion, change,
transmutation, transfiguration, and transelement-
ation of the bread and wine in the eucharist
(wherein the papists do greatly glory, boasting of
the consent of antiquity with them), I answer,
that there is no such consequence; transubstan-

tiation being another species of change, the enu-
-meration was not full; for it doth not follow, that
because there is a conversion, a transmutation, a
transelementation, there should be also a tran-
substantiation ; which the fathers never so much
as mentioned. For because this is a sacrament,
the change must be understood to be sacramental
also, whereby common bread and wine become
the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ,
which could not be, did not the substance of the
bread and wine remain; for a sacrament consist-
eth of two parts, an earthly and a heavenly. And
so, because ordinary bread is changed by conse-
cration into a bread which is no more of common
use, but appointed by divine institution to be a

144 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

sacramental sign whereby is represented the body
of Christ, in whom dwelleth the fulness of the
Godhead bodily; and being thereby dignified,
having great excellencies superadded, and so
made what it was not before, it is therefore said
by some of the fathers to be changed, to be made
another thing. And truly that change is great
and supernatural, but yet not substantial; not of
a substance which substantially ceaseth to be, into
another substance which substantially beginneth
to be; but it is a change of state and condition
which alters not the natural properties of the
element. This is also confirmed by Scripture,
which usually describes and represents the con-
version of men, and the supernatural change of
things, as though it were natural, though it be
not so. So those that are renewed by the word,
and spirit, and faith of Christ, are said to be
regenerated, converted, and transformed ;* to
put off the old man, and put on the new man,
and to be new creatures; but they are not said
to become another substance, to be transubstan-
tiated : for men thus converted have still the same
human body, and the same rational soul as before,
though in a far better state and condition, as
every Christian will acknowledge. Nay, the fa-
thers themselves use those words, transmutation,

* John iii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 3; 1 Cor. iv. 15; Rom. xii. 3;
Eph. iv. 22; Gal. vi. 15.

Ls S

iy
ne
ey
b
Bie

————————————— ST ee ee eel errr. ee

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 145

transformation, transelementation, upon other
occasions, when they speak of things whose sub-
stance is neither lost nor changed ; for those words
be of so large a signification, that though some-
times a substantial change is to be understood by
them, yet for the most part they signify only a
moral change, a change of qualities, of condition,
of office, of use, and the like. To this sense they
are used by the Greek fathers, Irenzeus, Clemens
Alexandrinus, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil,
Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of
Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact,
and Cicumenius,* to express the resurrection of
the body, the efficacy of divine doctrine, the sanc-
tification of a regenerated person, the immortality
of the flesh after the resurrection, the repentance
of sinners, the assumption of the human nature
in the person of Christ, the regeneration of saints,
the virtue of the divine grace, the power of baptism,
and the excellency of charity; and lastly, the al-
teration for the better, the greatness, usefulness,
power, and dignity of many things. Neither are
the Latin fathers t without such kind of expres-

[* See the Appendix to this chapter. ]

+ St. Austin. contra Crescon. iv. 54. [Homines congre-
gatos die pentecostes misso de ceelo Spiritu Sancto im-
plevit. Ibi uno die tria, alio quinque millia credentium
in suum corpus conversa suscepit.| St. Ambr. de Myst.
c. 9, et de Sacr. iv. c. 4. [quoted above, v, §17.] Faust.

H

>

146 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

sions ; for they do not make the conversion of the
bread and wine in the eucharist more essential or
substantial than in baptism the conversion of man
born again to a new life, or (as they speak) whose
human natural condition is changed into a nobler,
a heavenly state, which is a moral and mystic
change, and not natural or substantial. The an-
cientest of them, Tertullian, said, “ That God
had promised to man the body and substance of
angels; and that men should be transformed into
angels, as angels have been transformed into
men.”* Now, who would infer from hence, that
angels have been essentially changed into men;
or that human bodies should be so transformed
into an angelical substance, that they should be
no longer men nor human bodies, but properly
and essentially angels? which Tertullian himself
is expressly against, and saith, “ That angels
were so changed into men that still they remained
angels, without quitting their proper substance.’ +

Reg. sive Eus. Emiss. de Pasch. 55. [quoted above vi. § 7. |
Facund. ix. ¢. ult. [quoted above, v. § 25. | |

* Contra Marcion. iii. c. 9. [Nune recordemur et
hereticis renuntiemus ejus esse promissum, homines in
angelos reformandi quandoque, qui angelos in homines
formavit aliquando. |

+ De Carne Christi, cap. 3. [Angelos Creatoris con-
versos in effigiem humanam aliquando legisti et credidisti,
et tantam corporis gestasse veritatem, ut et pedes eis laverit
Abraham, et manibus ipsorum ereptus sit Sodomitis Loth.

;

‘)
’
td

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 147

As others have spoken of the bread in the eucha-
rist, “ That it so becomes the body of Christ, that
still it is what it was,” as St. Ambrose; “ That it
looseth not its nature,” as Theodoret ;* that the
substance of the bread remains, as Gelasius affirms.
And doubtless the same meant all the ancients,
who, according to their way of speaking, said
any thing of the change of bread and wine. For
all the vouchers brought by the Papists speak
only of an accidental, mystical, and moral, no-
thing at all of a substantial change. Transub-
stantiation is taken by its defenders for a material
change of one substance into another: we indeed
allow a transmutation of the elements; but as for
a substantial one, we vainly seek for it; it is no
where to be found.

Answer to the testimonies of St. Chrysostom, Cyril
of Alexandria, and others.

8. To the fourth head I refer what the fathers
say of our touching and seeing the body of Christ,
and drinking his blood in the sacrament; and
thereto I answer, that we deny not but that some
things emphatical, and even hyperbolical, have
been said of the sacrament by Chrysostom, and

—Quod ergo angelis inferioribus Deo licuit, uti conversi in
.corpulentiam humanam, angeli nihilominus permanerent,
hoe tu potentiori Deo aufers?]
* Superius citati. [v. § 17 et 21.]

148 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

some others ; and that those things may easily lead
unwary men into error. That was the ancient
fathers’ care, as it is ours still, to instruct the
people not to look barely on the outward elements,
but in them to eye with their minds the body and
blood of Christ, and with their hearts lift up to
feed on that heavenly meat; for all the benefit of
a sacrament is lost, if we look no farther than the
elements. Hence it is that those holy men, the
better to teach this lesson to their hearers, and
move their hearts more efficaciously, spake of the
signs as if they had been the thing signified, and,
like orators, said many things which will not bear
a literal sense, nor a strict examen. Such is this,
of an uncertain author under the name of St.
Cyprian ; “‘ We are close to the cross, we suck the
blood, and we put our tongues in the very wounds
of our Redeemer; so that both outwardly and
inwardly we are made red thereby.’* Such is
that of St. Chrysostom; “ In the sacrament the
blood is drawn out of the side of Christ ;t the

* Serm. de Coen. Dom. [Now generally attributed,
even by the Romanists, to Arnoldus de Bona Villa, con-
temporary with St. Bernard. The tract is usually pany
at the end of St. Cyprian and St. Bernard.

Cruci heremus, sanguinem sugimus, et intra ipsa Re-
demptoris nostri vulnera figimus linguam: quo interius

exteriusque rubricati. Opera S. Cypriani, App. p. xcix.. Vs

ed. Venet. 1728. |
+ Hom. in Encen. [De Peenitentia, Hom. ix. od

‘
’

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 149

tongue is made bloody with that wonderful
blood.”* Again; “ Thou seest thy Lord sacri-
ficed, and the crowding multitude round about
sprinkled with His blood; He that sits above with
the Father is at the same time in’ our hands.t+
Thou dost see, and touch, and eat Him.{ For I
do not shew thee either angels or archangels, but
the Lord of them Himself.”§ Again; “ He in-
corporates us with Himself, as if we were but the
same thing; He makes us His body indeed, and
suffers us not only to see, but even to touch, to

Oelov oduaros metadauBdvew vouicere, kal ds Tis Oclas Kat &xpav-
Tov WAeupas epamtdéuevar Tots xelAcow, OUT TOD TwTnplov aiuaros
peTarAdBwper. |

* Hom. 82. [al. 83. § 4.] in Matt. c. 26. [id0b abrdy spas,
abrod darn, abroyv éoOleis—airds dé éavTdv cor Slwow, ovi ideiv wd-
voy, GAAG Kal Epacbat Kad paryeiv Kal AaBetv v5ov.—tivos ody obk Zee
Kabapérepoy eivar Tov TavTns amodatbovtTa Tis Ovolas; molas AALaKis
aKTivos Thy XElpa Thy TavTny SiaTéuvoveay Thy odpKa, TL oTdua Td
TAnpotpevoy mupds mvevuarikod, Thy yAGooay Thy powiooopevny
aluart poicwdeordTy.

¢ Lib. de Sacerd. iii. §4. [8ray yap tons tov Kdguov rebuuevov
kal Keluevov kal roy tepéa epectara TH Odpari kal érevxduevor, kad
mdvras éxelvy TO Tiule powcoouevous aluari.—6d werd Tod warpds
tive Kadhuevos, kara thy Spay exeivny trois amdytwy Karéxerar xepa?
Kal didwow abroy Trois Bovdopévors meprmritacbat Kad repiAaBerv.]

{ Hom. 51 et 83. in Matt. [od 7d fudriov udvov, adArd Kat
7d oGpa, obx Sore dyacba udvov, GAN Sore Kal payhva Kad eu-
popnOjvar. }

§ Hom. 24, 1 Cor. [§ 5. ob yap ayyéaous odd8 dpyayyérous
0d8€ odpavods Kad odpavods odpavadv, GAN abtoy Tov Tobrwy cot SelK-
vou Seomdrny. |

150 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

, eat Him, and to put our teeth in His flesh; so
that by that food which He gives us, we become
His flesh.”* Such is that of St. Austin; “ Let
us give thanks, not only that we are made Chris-
tians, but also made Christ.”+ Lastly, such is
that of B. Leo; “ In that mystical distribution
it is given us to be made His flesh.’’{ Certainly,
if any man would wrangle and take advantage of
these, he might thereby maintain, as well that we
are transubstantiated into Christ, and Christ’s
flesh into the bread, as that the bread and wine
are transubstantiated into his body and blood.
But Protestants, who scorn to play the sophisters,
interpret these and the like passages of the fathers
with candour and ingenuity (as it is most fitting
they should). For the expressions of preachers,
which often have something of a paradox, must
not be taken according to that harsher sound
wherewith they at first strike the auditors’ ears.

* Hom. 45. in Joh. et 83. in Mat. [avéuitev éaurdy juiv
Kal avépupe 7) cua avTod eis Huas—Ka) Tov abrod mdOov emdevis
eis Tuas, odk iSeiv adbrdy udvoyv mapéoxe Tois émOupodow, GAAX Kar
&pacba kal paryeiv rad eumitar rods dddvras TH cagki. |

+ Tract. xxi. in Johan. [§ 8. Ergo gratulemur et
agamus gratias, non solum nos Christianos factos esse, sed
Christum. |

{ Epist. 23. [In illa mystica distributione spiritalis
alimonize hoe impartitur, hoc sumitur, ut accipientes vir-
tutem ceelestis cibi, in carnem ipsius qui caro nostra factus
est transeamus. |

4
i

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 151

The fathers spake not of any transubstantiated
bread, but of the mystical and consecrated, when
they used those sorts of expressions ; and that for
these reasons: Ist, That they might extol and
amplify the dignity of this mystery, which all true
Christians acknowledge to be very great and peer-
less. 2d, That communicants might not rest in
the outward elements, but seriously consider the
thing represented, whereof they are most certainly
made partakers, if they be worthy receivers. 3d
and lastly, That they might approach so great a
_mystery with the more zeal, reverence, and devo-
tion, And that those hyperbolic expressions are
thus to be understood, the fathers themselves
teach clearly enough, when they come to inter-
pret them.

9. Lastly, being the same holy fathers, who
(as the manner is to discourse of sacraments)
speak sometimes of the bread and wine in the
Lord’s supper as if they were the very body and
blood of Christ, do also very often call them
types, elements, signs, the figure of the body and
blood of Christ; from hence it appears most
manifestly, that they were of the Protestants’, and
not of the Papists’ opinion. For we can, without
prejudice to what we believe of the sacrament,
use those former expressions which the Papists
believe do most favour them, if they be under-
stood, as they ought to be, sacramentally. But

152 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

. the latter none can use, but he must thereby over-
throw the groundless doctrine of transubstantia-
tion; these two, the bread is transubstantiated —
into the body, and the bread also is the type, the
sign, the figure of the body of Christ, being wholly
inconsistent. For it is impossible that a thing
that loseth its being should yet be the sign and
representation of another; neither can any thing _
be the type and the sign of itself.

10. But if, without admitting of a sacramental
sense, the words be used too rigorously, nothing
but this will follow, that the bread and wine are
really and properly the very body and blood of
Christ, which they themselves disown that hold
transubstantiation. Therefore in this change it
is not a newness of substance, but of use and
virtue, that is produced; which yet the fathers
acknowledged, with us, to be wonderful, super-
natural, and proper only to God’s omnipotency :
for that earthly and corruptible meat cannot be-
come to us a spiritual and heavenly, the com-
munion of the body and blood of Christ, without
God’s especial power and operation. And whereas
it is far above philosophy and human reason, that
Christ from heaven (where alone He is locally)
should reach down to us the divine virtue of His
flesh, so that we are made one body with Him;
therefore it is as necessary as it is reasonable that
the fathers should tell us, that we ought with

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 153

singleness of heart to believe the Son of God,
when He saith, “This is My body ;” and that we
ought not to measure this high and holy mystery
by our narrow conceptions, or by the course of
nature. For it is more acceptable to God with
an humble simplicity of faith to reverence and
embrace the words of Christ, than to wrest them
violently to a strange and improper sense, and
with curiosity and presumption to determine what
exceeds the capacity of men and angels. Thus
much in general may suffice to answer those
places of the fathers which are usually brought in
the behalf of transubstantiation. He that would
have a larger refutation of those objections fetched
from antiquity, may read Hospinianus his History
of the Sacrament,* and Antonius de Dominis in
his fifth book of the Christian Commonwealth,
chap. vi.,t and in his detection of the errors of
Saurez, chap. ii.

Answer to single testimony of Fathers.

11. That place of Ignatius cited by Theodoret {
out of the epistle to the Smyrnenses (where now
it is not to be found), and objected by some of the

* Lib. ii. et iv. + A sect. 1. usque ad 13.

t Dial. 3. ex Epist. v. [ad Smyrn. ebyapiorlas Kal mpoo-
popas ovK arodéxovrat, Sida Td wh Suoroyeiv Thy edxapiotiay odpKa
elvat Tod cwrTipos Hua "Incod Xgiorod, Thy drip GpapTiav huey
mabovoav, hy xpnordérnt: 5 marhp iyeper. Opera, iv, 154.
ed. 1642. |

H2

154 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,

» Romish faith, “ That the heretics Simoniani and
Menandriani would have no eucharistical obla-
tions, because they denied the sacrament to be
the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,”’ makes no-
thing for transubstantiation, as Bellarmine him-
self confesseth. ‘ For,” saith he, “ those heretics
did not oppose the sacrament of the eucharist, so
much as the mystery of the incarnation; and
therefore (as Ignatius shews in that place) they
would deny that the eucharist is the flesh of
Christ; that is (as Theodoret interprets it), that
the divine mysteries of bread and wine should be
the signs of a real body of Christ truly existing,
because they would not own that Christ had taken
flesh.”** And so, lest they should be forced to
acknowledge the reality of the flesh of Christ,

* De Eucharistia, i. 1. [Primi qui negarunt Christi
corporis esse in eucharistia videntur fuisse illi ipsi qui
primi heresum zizania in ecclesia serere coeperunt; Si-
moniani, Menandriani et similes. De his loquens S.
Ignatius, in epistola ad Smyrnenses, sic ait: Hucharistias
et oblationes non admittunt, eo quod non confiteantur eu-
charistiam esse carnem Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi: que
sententia citatur a Theodoreto in 3. dialogo ex epistola ad
Smyrnenses; ubi tamen nunc non habetur. Ne autem
glorientur Calviniste sententiam suam valde antiquam
esse, illud est observandum, antiquos illos hereticos non
tam sacramentum eucharistie, quam mysterium incarna-
tionis oppugnasse. Idcirco enim (ut Ignatius ibidem in-
dicat) negabant eucharistiam esse carnem Domini, quia
negabant Dominum ‘habere carnem. |

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 155

they would wholly reject the signs and sacraments
of it; for the signs of the body being given, the
true body is given also, because the substance
and the type infer one another, and a phantasm
or illusion is not capable of a sign or represen-
tation.

12. The words out of Justin Martyr, whereby
they would prove transubstantiation, do strongly
disprove it. “For,” saith he, “as by the word
of God our Saviour was incarnate, so by the
prayers of God’s word the eucharist is made,
whereby our bodies are nourished, the body and
blood of Christ.”* Now, when Christ took hu-
man flesh, none could say without heresy that he
was transubstantiated.

13. Neither is that against the Protestants
which is brought out of St. Cyprian (though it be
none of his), ‘‘ of the bread changed not in ap-
pearance, but in nature.”’+ For he, whoever it
was, took not the word nature in a strict sense,
or else he was contrary to Theodoret, Gelasius,
and others above mentioned, who expressly deny

* Apologia ad Anton. [p. 96. dv rpdmov dik Adyou @cod
capkorroinbels *Inoovs Xpiords 6 owrhp juav, kal odpKa Kad aiua brép
cwrnplas hay éoxev, otTrws Kal Thy Be edxijs Adyov Tod wag’ adTod
eixapiobeicay tpopiy é fs alua nal odpKes kata weraBorhy Tpépov-
TH Nuwv. |

+ Sermo de Cena Domini. [App. p. xcvii. Panis iste

quem Dominus discipulis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura
mutatus omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro. |

156 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

that the bread should be thus changed; but at
large, as nature is taken for use, qualities, and
condition. For by the infinite power of the Word
the nature of the bread is so changed, that what
was before a bare element becomes now a divine
sacrament, but without any transubstantiation 5
as appears by what follows in the same period, “ of
the human and divine natures of Christ,’? where
the manhood is not substantially changed into
the Godhead, except we will follow Eutyches the
heretic. :

14. The words of Cyril, as the Roman doctors
say,* are so clear for them, that they admit of no
evasion: ‘ For,” saith he, “ He that changed
once the water into wine, is He not worthy to be
believed that He changed the wine into blood?
Therefore let us with all certainty receive the
body and blood of Christ; for His body under
the appearance of the bread, and His blood under
the appearance of the wine, are given to thee.’’+
Indeed, Protestants do freely grant, and firmly
believe, that the wine (as hath often been said) is

* Bellarmin. de Eucharistia, ii. 13. [Tam perspicua, ut
omnino nesciam quid fingi possit ad eorum perversionem. |.

+ Cyril. Hieros. Catec. Mystag. iv. §2. [1d 88we wore eis
olvov weraBeBAnker, ev Kava tis Tadwaalas oixelw veduatie kad odk
atidmiotés eat olvoy petaBarwy eis aiua;—pmeTa maons mAnpo-
goplas &s oduaros Kal aluatos metadauBdvwpev Xpiotod. év Timm
yap Uprov Sidorat vor cGua, Kal év Tdmw olvov Sidoral cor Td aiua—

wh mpdoexe G&S WiAois TE UpTe Kal TE otvy.]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 157

changed into the blood of Christ ; but every change
is not a transubstantiation ; neither doth Cyril say
that this change is like that of the water, for then
it would also appear to our senses; but that He
who changed the water sensibly, can also change
the wine sacramentally, will not be doubted by
any. As for what he calls the appearances of
bread and wine, he doth not thereby exclude, but
rather include their substance, and mean the
bread and wine itself: for so he intimates by what
there follows; “‘ do not look on them as bare
bread and wine:’’ as much as to say, it is bread
indeed, but yet not bare bread, but something
besides. But that this conversion of the water
and wine makes nothing for transubstantiation,
may be thus made to appear. That God’s omni-
potency can change one substance into another,
none will deny; and we see it done by Christ in
the town of Cana of Galilee, when he changed
the water into wine ; and it was a true and proper
transubstantiation. But the Papists in the Lord’s
supper tell us of quite another change, which, if
well considered, cannot so much as be understood.
For the substance of the bread is not changed into
another that had no being, but, as they say, the
bread is changed into that body of Christ which
really existed and had a being these many hun-
dred years, ever since the incarnation ; whereas
that very wine which Christ made of the water

158 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

was not in being before the change which He
wrought. Now it is easy for any to understand,
that He who created all things out of nothing can
well make a new wine of water, or any other
thing ; but it is more than absurd, that the body
of Christ, or any other substance already in be-
ing, perfect and complete, should be made afresh
of another substance, when it really subsisted be-
fore. Which they well understood who devised an
adduction, or bringing of the body of Christ into
the place of the bread, and that is as much as to
deny transubstantiation ; except it can be said that
a man is transubstantiated into another as often
as he comes into his place, which no man in his
right wits can fancy.

15. St. Ambrose said also, “that the nature
is changed ;”* and indeed it is so, for other is the
nature of the element, and other that of the sacra-
ment; neither do Protestants deny “ that the
element is changed by the blessing,’”’ so that the
bread being made sacred, “‘ is no more that which
nature formed, but that which the blessing con-
secrated, and, by consecrating, changed.”” Mean-
while St. Ambrose in that place doth not make
the words or blessing of Christ to have any other
operation than to make that which was, still to
be, and yet to be changed; therefore the bread

* De Sacram. iv. 4. et De Mysteriis, c. ix. [quoted
above, pp. 96, 97. ]

:
|
|

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 159

is not made the body of Christ by transub-
stantiation, but by a sacramental change. He
adds, “ That sacrament which thou receivest is
made by the word of Christ: and if the word of
Elias had so much power as to bring down fire
from heaven, shall not the word of Christ be effi-
cacious enough to change the properties of the
elements? Thou hast read of the creation of all
things; that He said the word, and it was done:
and shall not that word of Christ, which made all
out of nothing, change that which is already, into
that which it was not? Thou thyself wert, but
wert the old man; but, being baptised, thou art
now become a new creature. Now it is as much
to give a new nature, as to change the nature of
a thing.”* By these words he plainly declares
his opinion, that by virtue of this change the
elements of bread and wine cease not to be what
they are by essence, and yet by the consecration
are made what before they were not. But where
did our transubstantiators learn out of St. Am-

[* Sacramentum istud quod accipis, Christi sermone
conficitur. Quod si tantum valuit sermo Elie, ut ignem de
ccelo deponeret, non valebit Christi sermo ut species mutet
elementorum? De totius mundi operibus legisti: Quia ipse
dixit, et facta sunt ; ipse mandavit, et creata sunt. Sermo
ergo Christi, qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat, non
potest ea que sunt in id mutare quod non erant? Non

enim minus est novas rebus dare, quam mutare naturas.
De Myst. ix. § 52. |

160 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

*brose, or any of the fathers, that to make the
sacrament is the same as to bring the natural

body of Christ and put it under the accidents of
the bread, or in the place of its substance which
is vanished away? ‘They say, “ that the compa-
rison betwixt the things changed by Christ and
the prophet would be silly, if there be no more
than a sacramental change in the eucharist ;”’* as
though the sacramental change were a thing of
nought: “ for,’’ saith Cardinal Bellarmine, “ what
power is there required to do nothing?”’+ But
Protestants answer, that the greatness, majesty,
excellency, and dignity of the sacrament is such,
that they admire no less the omnipotency of God
in sanctifying the creatures to so high an office
and so holy an use, than in creating the world
out of nothing, or changing the nature of things
by the ministry of His prophets. For it is not by
man’s power, but by the Divine virtue, that things
earthly and mean of themselves are made to us
assured pledges of the body and blood of Christ.
And if they urge the letter of those words of St. |
Ambrose, “ by the word of Christ the species of
the elements are changed,” as Bellarmine and (
others do, why then they must confess that not

* Bellarmin. loco citato. [ii. c. 14. Quam inepte ista
omnia dicerentur, si nulla fieret realis mutatio !]

+ Ibid. ii. 9. [Quee omnipotentia requiritur ad facien-
dum nihil ? | ;

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 161

only the substance, but also the species or acci-
dents (as they call them) of the bread and wine
are changed into the body and blood of Christ.
And so, being St. Ambrose and all the ancients
said indifferently, as well that the species of the
bread and wine as that the bread and wine them-
selves are changed, who will not from hence
understand that the groundless fabric of transub-
stantiation (whereby they would have the sub-
stance of the elements so abolished in the sacra-
ment, that their mere accidents or appearances
remain without any subject) is strongly battered
and utterly ruined ?

16. All other testimonies of the fathers, if
Athey say “ that the bread is made the body of
Christ,” are willingly owned by Protestants; for
they hold that the element cannot become a
sacrament, nor the sacrament have a being, with-
out the thing which it represents: for the car-
dinal himself will not affirm that the body of
Christ is produced out of the bread. This is,
therefore, what we say with St. Austin, and en-
deavour to prove by all means; ‘‘ That the sacrifice
of the eucharist is made of two things, the visible
element and the invisible flesh and blood of Christ,
as the person of Christ consisteth of the Godhead
and manhood, He being true God and true man;
for every compound retains the nature of that
whereof it is made: now the sacrament is com-

162 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

posed of two things, the sign and the thing sig-
nified, that is the body of Christ.’’*

17. Let the champions of transubstantiation
strut and vapour now, with their two-and-thirty
stout seconds,ft who have stood for them, as they
say, before the time of Pope Innocent the Third.
For what Innocent the Third decreed,{ and the
council of Trent defined (** that it was ever the
persuasion of the catholic church, that the bread
is so changed into the body of Christ, that the
substance of the bread vanishing away, only the
flesh of Christ should remain under the accidents
of the bread’’),§ is so far from being true, that
the doctrine of transubstantiation, not only as to
the name, but as to the thing itself, is wholly des-
titute of the patronage of antiquity, and left to

* De Consecr. dist. 2. c. Hoc est. [quoted at p. 104. |

+ Bellarmin. Euch. iii. 20. [Habemus triginta duos
probatissimos testes, quorum postremi quinque tempore 8.
Bernardi, omnes autem ante Innocentium III. floruerunt. |

t Extra. de Trin. et Fide Cathol. ¢. 1.

§ Sess. 13. c. 4. [Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor
noster corpus suum id quod sub specie panis offerebat, vere
esse dixit, ideo persuasum semper in ecclesia Dei fuit, idque
nunc denuo sancta hee synodus declarat, per consecrati-
onem panis et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiz
panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini nostri, et
totius substantie vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus; qué
conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta catholica eccle-
sia transubstantiatio est appellata. |

ce

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 163

shift for itself. Alphonsus 4 Castro* said, that
in ancient writers mention was made very seldom
of transubstantiation; had he said never, it had
been more true. For so our Jesuits in England
confessed, “‘ that the business of transubstantia-
tion was not so much as touched by the ancient
fathers ;”+ which is very true, as will appear more
at large in the following chapter.

* Adversus Heereses, viii. f. 140, b. De Indulgentiis.
[ De transubstantiatione panis in corpus Christi rara est in
antiquis scriptoribus mentio. |

+ Discurs. modest. de Jesuit. p. 13. and Watson’s Quod-
libets [p. 31].

164 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

CHAPTER VII.

Of the writers of the eleventh and twelfth century, from
whom we may easily deduce and trace the history of —
papal transubstantiation. 1. What manner of popes —
they were in those times. 2. The unhappy age, wherein
divines were divided about the point of the eucharist.
3. The opinion of Fulbertus. 4. Followed by his dis-
ciple Berengarius, who is opposed by others. 5, 6.
The doctrine of Berengarius defended. 7. The roaring
of Leo IX. against Berengarius. 8. The synod of
Tours under Victor II., which cleared Berengarius
as free from error. 9. Pope Nicolas II. gathers
another synod against Berengarius, who is forced
to make a wondrous hind of recantation. 10. The
authors of the ordinary gloss censure the recantation
imposed on Berengarius. 11. He saith that he was
violently compelled to make it for fear of being put to
death. Lanfrancus and Guitmundus write against him.
12. Of Pope Hildebrand and his Roman council,
wherein Berengarius was again cited and condemned
in vain. 13. The doctrine of St. Bernard approved.
14. The opinion of Rupertus. 15. Lombard could de-
fine nothing of the transubstantiation of the bread, and
reasons poorly upon the independency of the accidents.
16. Otho Frisingensis and those of his time confessed
that the bread and wine remain in the eucharist. 17.
P. Blesensis and St. Eduensis were the first that used
the word of transubstantiation. 18. Of the thirteenth
century, wherein Pope Innocent III. published his
decree of the transubstantiation of the bread and wine

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 165

into the body and blood of Christ. 19,20. The won-
derful pride of Innocent III, The Lateran council
determined nothing concerning that point. 21. The
cruelty of the same Innocent, who by the rack and the
fire sought to establish his new doctrine. 22. What
Gerson said of the Roman Church in his time. Many
more inventions proceed from transubstantiation. Inex-
tricable and unheard-of questions. 23. New orders of
monks and of the schoolmen. 24. Of their fine wran-
gling and disputing. 25. The sacrament abused most
grossly by the patrons of transubstantiation. 26, 27.
Holhot, Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, and other school-
men, though sometimes they be not for transubstantia-
tion, yet they wholly submit to the judgment of the pope.
28. Of the council of Constance, which took the cup
from the laity. 29. Cardinal Cameracensis denies that
transubstantiation can be proved by holy Scripture. 30.
Of the council of Florence, and the instruction of the
Armenians by Pope Eugenius IV. 31. The papal curse
in the council of Trent not to be feared. The conclusion
of the book.

1. We have proved it before, that the leprosy of
transubstantiation did not begin to spread over
the body of the Church in a thousand years after
Christ. But at last the thousand years being ex-
pired, and Satan loosed out of his prison, to go
and deceive the nations, and compass the camp
of the saints about, then, to the great damage of
Christian peace and religion, they began here and
there to dispute against the clear, constant, and
universal consent of the fathers, and to maintain

166 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

the new-started opinion. It is known to them
that understand history, what manner of times
were then, and what were those bishops who
then governed the Church of Rome; Sylvester
II., John XIX. and XX., Sergius IV., Benedict
VIII., John XXI., Benedict IX., Sylvester III.,
Gregory VI., Damasus II., Leo [X., Nicolas II.,
Gregory VII. or Hildebrand, who tore to pieces
the Church of Rome with grievous schisms, cruel
wars, and great slaughters.* For the Roman pon-
tificate was come to that pass, that good men
being put by, they whose life and doctrine were
pious being oppressed, none could obtain that
dignity but they that could bribe best and were
most ambitious.

2. In that unhappy age the learned were at
odds about the presence of the body of Christ in
the sacrament; some defending the ancient doc-
trine of the Church, and some the new-sprung-up
opinion.

3. Fulbert,t bishop of Chartres, was tutor to
Berengarius, whom we shall soon have occasion
to speak of; and his doctrine was altogether
conformable to that of the primitive Church, as
appears clearly out of his epistle to Adeodatus ;
wherein he teacheth, “ That the mystery of faith

* Card. Bar. tom. x. Annal. an. 897, § 4. Gilbertus
Genebrardus, Chron. sub init. seculi x.

+ A.D. 1010.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 167

in the eucharist is not to be looked on with our
bodily eyes, but with the eyes of our mind: for
what appears outwardly bread and wine, is made
inwardly the body and blood of Christ; not that
which is tasted with the mouth, but that which is
relished by the heart’s affection. Therefore,” saith
he, “ prepare the palate of thy faith, open the
throat of thy hope, and enlarge the bowels of thy
charity, and take that bread of life, which is the
food of the inward man.” Again; “ The percep-
tion of a divine taste proceeds from the faith of
the inward man, whilst by receiving the saving
sacrament, Christ is received into the soul.” *
All this is against those who teach in too gross a
manner, that Christ in this mystery enters car-
nally the mouth and stomach of the receivers.

4. Fulbert was followed by Berengarius his

* Epistola ad Adeodatum, inter alia ejus opera impressa
Paris. an. 1608. [Est enim mysterium fide non specie esti-
mandum, non visu corporeo sed spiritu intuendum.—Que
substantia panis et vini apparebat exterius, jam corpus
Christi et sanguis fit interius.—Sapit, ni fallor, cibum illum
angelicum habentem intra se mystici saporis delectamen-
tum, non quod ore discernas, sed quod affectu interiori de-
gustes. Exere palatum fidei, dilata fauces spei, viscera
_ eharitatis extende, et sume panem, vite interioris hominis
alimentum.— De fide etenim interioris hominis procedit
divini gustus saporis, dum certe per salutaris eucharistiz
infusionem influit Christus in viscera anime sumentis.
Biblioth. Patrum, xi. 4.]

168 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

scholar, archdeacon of Angers* in France, a man ~
of great worth, by the holiness both of his life —
and doctrine, as Platina, Vincentius Bergomensis,

and many more witness. This encomium, writ
soon after his death by Hildebert, bishop of Mans, |
a most learned man, is thus recorded by our Wil-
liam of Malmsbury. |

‘¢ That Berengarius, who was so admired,
Although his name yet lives, is now expired ;
He outlives himself, yet a sad fatal day
Him from the Church and state did snatch away.
O dreadful day, why didst thou play the thief,
And fill the world with ruin and with grief?
For by his death the Church, the laws, and all
The clergy’s glory do receive a fall.
His sacred wisdom was too great for fame,
And the whole world’s too little for his name ;
Which to its proper zenith none can raise,
His merits do so far exceed all praise.
Then surely thou art blest, nor dost thou less
Heaven with thy soul, earth with thy body bless.
When I go hence, O, may I dwell with thee
In thine appointed place, where’er it be !’’+

. [ Andegavensis, Anjou.| A.D. 1030.
+ Guliel. Malms. De Gestis Regum Anglorum. [p. 113.
ed. Francof.
Quem modo miratur, semper mirabitur orbis,
Ille Berengarius non moriturus obit:
Quem sacree fidei fastigia summa tenentem
Jani quinta dies abstulit ausa nefas.
Illa dies, damnosa dies et perfida mundo,
Qua dolor et rerum summa ruina fuit.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 169

Now this Berengarius was not only archdeacon
of Angers, but also the scholasticus, or master of
the chair, of the same church ;* which dignity is
ever enjoyed by the chancellor of the university,
for his office is in great churches to teach the
clergy, and instruct them in sound doctrine.t
All this I have produced more at large to manifest
the base and injurious calumnies cast upon this
worthy and famous man by latter writers ; as John
Garetius of Louvain,{ William Alan§ our country-
man, and others, who not only accuse him of

Qua status ecclesize, qua spes, qua gloria cleri,
Qua cultor juris jure ruente ruit.

Quicquid philosophi, quicquid cecinere poet
Ingenio cessit eloquioque suo.

Sanctior et major sapientia majus adorta

Implevit sacrum pectus et ora Deo.
* * * * * *

Fama minor meritis cum totum pervolet orbem ;

Cum semper crescat, non erit equa tamen.
* * ¥* * * *

Vir vere sapiens, et parte beatus ab omni,
Qui ceelos anima, corpore ditat humum.

Post obitum vivam secum, secum requiescam,
Nee fiat melior sors mea sorte sua. |

* A. Thevet, Vies des Hommes illustres, iii. 62.
+ Pap. Masso Annales Francie, in lib. iii.
{ Garet. De vera preesentia [corporis Christi in cuebie
ristia], in Epist. nuncup. et clas. v.
§ Alanus De Eucharistia, i. 21. [p. 337. scelere et su-
perbia inflammatus—artium optimarum ignarus et osor. |
I

170 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,.

being an heretic, but also a worthless and an ©
unlearned man.

5. Berengarius* stood up valiantly in defence
of that doctrine which 170 years before was de-
livered out of God’s word and the holy fathers, in
France by Bertram and John Erigena, and by
others elsewhere, against those who taught that
in the eucharist neither bread nor wine remained
after the consecration. Yet he did not either be-
lieve or teach (as many falsely and shamelessly
have imputed to him) that nothing more is re-
ceived in the Lord’s supper but bare signs only,
or mere bread and wine; but he believed and
openly professed, as St. Austin and other faithful
doctors of the Church had taught out of God’s
word, that in this mystery the souls of the faithful
are truly fed by the true body and blood of Christ
to life eternal. Nevertheless, it was neither his
mind nor his doctrine that the substance of the.
bread and wine is reduced to nothing, or changed
into the substance of the natural body of Christ,
or (as some then would have had the Church
believe) that Christ Himself comes down carnally
from heaven. Entire books he wrote upon this
subject ; but they have been wholly suppressed by —
his enemies, and now are not to be found. Yet what —
we have of him in his greatest enemy, Lanfrank,
I here set down; “ By the consecration at the —

* a.v. 1030.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 171

altar the bread and wine are made a sacrament of
religion, not to cease to be what they were, but to
be changed into something else, and to become
what they were not;” agreeable to what St. Am-
brose had taught. Again; “ There are two parts
in the sacrifice of the Church (this is according
to St. Irenzus), the visible sacrament, and the
invisible thing of the sacrament, that is, the body
of Christ.” Item; ‘The bread and wine which are
consecrated remain in their substance, having a
resemblance with that whereof they are a sacra-
ment, for else they could not be a sacrament.”
Lastly; “Sacraments are visible signs of divine
things, but in them the invisible things are ho-
noured.”* All this agrees well with St. Austin
and other fathers above cited.

* Extant apud Lanfr. De verit. corp. Dom. in Euch.
[in Bib. Patrum, tom. xi. Per consecrationem altaris fiunt
panis et vinum sacramentum religionis; non ut desinant
esse que erant, sed ut sint que erant, et in aliud commu-
tentur, quod dicit beatus Ambrosius in libro De Sacra-
mentis.— p. 340. Sacrificium ecclesie duobus constat,
duobus conficitur, visibili sacramento et re sacramenti.
Que tamen res, id est, corpus Christi, si esset pre oculis
visibilis esset.— p. 341. Unde beatus Augustinus in libro
De Civitate Dei: ‘‘ Sacramentum est sacrum signum.”’—
Augustinus in Epistola ad Bonifacium episcopum: “ Si
sacramenta rerum quarum sacramenta sunt similitudinem
non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent.” Idem De
Catechizandis rudibus: ‘ Signacula quidem rerum divina-
rum sunt visibilia, sed res invisibiles in eis honorantur.’’ |

172 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

6. He did not, therefore, by this his ‘doctrine
exclude the body of Christ from the sacrament; but
in its right administration he joined together the
thing signified with the sacred sign, and taught
that the body of Christ was not eaten with the
mouth in a carnal way, but with the mind, and
soul, and spirit. Neither did Berengarius alone
maintain this orthodox and ancient doctrine; for
Sigibert,* William of Malmesbury,t Matthew
Paris,t and Matthew of Westminster,$ make it
certain that almost all the French, Italians, and
English of those times were of the same opinion ;
and that many things were said, writ, and disputed
in its defence by many men; amongst whom
was Bruno, then bishop of the same church of

Angers.|| Now this greatly displeased the papal
faction, who took great care that those men’s
writings should not be delivered to posterity ;
and now do write, that the doctrine of Berenga-
rius, owned by the fathers, and maintained by
many famous nations, skulked only in some dark
corner or other.

7. The first pope who opposed himself to Be-
rengarius was Leo the Ninth ;§ a plain man indeed,
but too much led by Humbert and Hildebrand.

* Chron. a Mireo editum, ad an. 1051.
[+ De Gestis Regum, p. 113.]

t In Hist. majori, ad an. 1087. § Ad eundem annum.
|| Baron. ad an. 1035, § 1.6. {J a.p. 1050.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 173

For as soon as he was desired, he pronounced
sentence of excommunication against Berengarius
absent and unheard ;* and not long after, he
called a council at Verceil,t wherein John Erigena
and Berengarius were condemned,{ upon this
account, that they should say, that the bread
and wine in the eucharist are only bare signs ;§
which was far from their thoughts, and farther yet
from their belief. This roaring, therefore, of the
lion frighted not Berengarius; nay, the Gallican
churches || did also oppose the pope and his synod
of Verceil, and defend with Berengarius the op-
pressed truth.

8. To Leo succeeded Pope Victor the Second, ¥
who, seeing that Berengarius could not be cast
down and crushed by the fulminations of his pre-
decessor, sent his legate Hildebrand into France,
and called another council at Tours,** where
Berengarius, being cited, did freely appear, and
whence he was freely dismissed, after he had given
it under his hand, that the bread and wine in the

* Lanfranc in libro citato [p. 357. Ibid. ]

[+ a.p. 1050. See Harduin’s Concil. vi. 1. 1017.]

{ But it was about 200 years after the death of this
most innocent man. .

§ Adelmannus in Epist. ad Berengarium. [Figuram
quandam et similitudinem. Biblioth. Patrum, xi. p. 348.]

|| Those of Rennes, Anjou, Leon, Dola, and Maclo, &e.

{| a.p. 1055.

[** a.p. 1055. See Harduin, ib. 1045. |

174 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

sacrifice of the Church are not shadows and empty
figures; and that he held none other but the
common doctrine of the Church concerning the
sacrament, For he did not alter his judgment
(as modern Papists give out), but he persisted to
teach and maintain the same doctrine as before,
as Lanfrank complains of him.

9. Yet his enemies would not rest satisfied
with this; but they urged Pope Nicholas the
Second, who (within a few months that Stephen
the Tenth sate) succeeded Victor, without the
emperor’s consent, to call a new council at Rome
against Berengarius.* For, that sensual manner
of presence, by them devised, to the great dis-
honour of Christ, being rejected by Berengarius,
and he teaching, as he did before, that the body
of Christ was not present in such a sort as that
it might be at pleasure brought in and out, taken
into the stomach, cast on the ground, trod under
foot, and bit or devoured by any beasts; they
falsely charged him as if he had denied that it is
present at all. An hundred and thirteen bishops
came to the council, to obey the pope’s mandate ;
Berengarius came also; “ and,” as Sigonius
and Leo Ostiensis § say, “ when none present
could withstand him, they sent for one Albericus,

* A.D. 1058. + A.D. 1059. [Harduin, ib. 1064.] _
t De Regno Italico, ad an. 1059. [p. 345. ed. 1575. 4to.]
§ In Chronicon Cassin. iii. 33.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 175

a monk of Mont Cassin, made cardinal by Pope
Stephen,” who having asked seven days’ time to
answer in writing, brought at last his scroll against
Berengarius. The reasons and arguments used
therein to convince his antagonist are not now
extant; but whatever they were, Berengarius was
commanded presently, without any delay, to re-
cant,* in that form prescribed and appointed by
Cardinal Humbert, which was thus:+ “I Be-
rengarius, &c. assent to the holy Roman and
apostolic see, and with my heart and mouth
do profess that I hold that faith concerning the
sacrament of the Lord’s table which our lord and
venerable Pope Nicholas, and this sacred council,
have determined and imposed upon me by their
evangelic and apostolic authority; to wit, that
the bread and wine which are set on the altar,

* Baron. ad an. 1059, § 18. [Ego Berengarius indignus
diaconus, &c. Consentio autem sancte Romane ecclesie
et apostolice sedi, et ore et corde profiteor de sacramento
Dominice mense eam fidem me tenere, quam dominus
et venerabilis Papa Nicolaus et hec sancta synodus aucto-
ritate evangelica et apostolica tenendam tradidit, mihique
firmavit ; sc. panem et vinum, que in altari ponuntur, post
consecrationem non solum sacramentum, sed etiam verum
corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse, et
sensualiter, non solum sacramento, sed in veritate manibus
sacerdotum tractari, frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri. |

+ Habetur apud Gratian. De Consecr. Dist. ii. cap. 42.
[f. 617, b.]

x

176 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,

are not after the consecration only a sacrament,
sign, and figure, but also the very body and blood —
of our Lord Jesus Christ,” (thus far it is well —
enough; but what follows is too horrid, and is
disowned by the Papists themselves ;) “ and that
they (the body and blood) are touched and broken
with the hands of the priests, and ground with
the teeth of the faithful, not sacramentally only,
but in truth and sensibly.”” This is the prescript
of the recantation imposed on Berengarius, and
by him at first rejected ; but by imprisonment and
threats, and fear of being put to death, at last
extorted from him.*

10. This form of recantation is to be found
entire in Lanfrank,t Algerus,t and Gratian ;§
yet the glosser on Gratian, John Semeca, marks
it with this note; “ Except you understand well
the words of Berengarius” (he should rather have
said, of Pope Nicholas and Cardinal Humbertus),
“you shall fall into a greater heresy than his was,
for he exceeded the truth, and spake hyperboli-
cally.” || And so Richard de Mediavilla; “ Beren-

* Pap. Mass. Annal. France. iii.

+ Sub libri quem contra Bereng. scripsit initium.

t [De Sacramento] ii. 15. [in Biblioth. Patrum, xii.
p. 2, c. 165.)

§ Ubi supra.

|| In c. Ego Berengarius. De Consecrat. Dist. ii. [Nisi
sane intelligas verba Berengarii, in majorem incides heeresim

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 177

garius, being accused, overshot himself in his
justification :”’* but the excess of his words should
be ascribed to those who prescribed and forced
them upon him. Yet in all this we hear nothing
of transubstantiation.}

11. Berengarius at last escaped out of this
danger, and, conscious to himself of having denied
the truth, took heart again, and refuted in writ-
ing his own impious and absurd recantation, and
said, “ That by force it was extorted from him by
the church of malignants, the council of vanity.”
Lanfrank of Caen, at that time head of a monas-
tery in France, afterwards archbishop of Canter-
bury, and Guitmundus Aversanus, answered him.
And though it is not to be doubted but that
Berengarius, and those of his party, writ and
replied again and again, yet so well did their
adversaries look to it, that nothing of theirs re-
mains, save some citations in Lanfrank. But it
were to be wished that we had now the entire
works of Berengarius, who was a learned man,

quam ipse habuit. f. 617, b.] Inc. Utrum sub figura. [Ibi
hyperbolice locutus est, et veritatem excessit. f. 623. a. _
Semeca died in 1243. He was one of the greatest canonists
of the age, and styled Dux Doctorum. |

* In iv. Dist. 9. prin. 1.q.1. [Quia ille Berengarius
fuerat infamatus quod non credebat corpus Christi realiter
contineri sub specie, ideo ad sui purgationem per verba
excessiva contrarium asseruit. ]

[+ See Bramhall’s Answer to Militiere. Works, p.17.]

12

178 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

and a constant follower of antiquity; for out of —
them we might know with more certainty how 7
things went, than we can out of what his professed |
enemies have said. |
12. This sacramental debate ceased a while,
because of the tumults of war raised in Apulia —
and elsewhere by Pope Nicholas the Second; but —
it began again as soon as Hildebrand, called Gre-
gory the Seventh, came to the papal chair.* For
Berengarius was cited again to a new council at ~
Rome, “where, some being of one Opinion, and —
some of another,” (as it is in the acts of that
council,t writ by those of the pope’s faction), his
cause could not be so entirely oppressed but that —
some bishops were still found to uphold it. Nay, —
the ring-leader himself, Hildebrand, is said to have
doubted, “‘ whether what we receive at the Lord’s
table be indeed the body of Christ by a substantial
conversion.” { But three months’ space having
been granted to Berengarius,§ and a fast appointed
to the cardinals, “ that God would shew by some
sign from heaven” (which yet He did not) “who —
* AsD. 1079, .
+ Excus. cum Lanfran. libro, et apud Binium. [Multis :
hee, nonnullis alia sentientibus. Harduin, Concil. vi. p. i.
p- 1584. ]
{ Engilb, Archiep. Trevir, apud Goldast. Imp. tom. i. —
[There was no Engilbert Archbishop of Treves, nor is there

any work in this name in Goldasti. |
§ Bertoldus Constant. in Chron. an. 1079.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 179

was in the right, the pope or Berengarius, concern-
ing the body of the Lord ;”* at last the business
was decided without any oracle from above, and
a new form of retractation imposed on Berenga-
rius,t whereby he was henceforth forward to con-
fess, under pain of the pope’s high displeasure,
“ that the mystic bread”’ (first made magical and
enchanting by. Hildebrandt) “ is substantially
turned into the true and proper flesh of Christ :Ӥ
which whether he ever did is not certain. For
though Malmesbury tells us, “that he died in

* Benno Card. in vita Hildebrandi. [Jejunium indixit
cardinalibus, ut Deus ostenderet quis rectius sentiret de
corpore Domini, Romanane ecclesia, an Berengarius. In
Brown’s Fasciculus, i. 79. ]

+ Habetur ista formula apud Tho. Waldens. tom. ii.
ce. 42. et in Registro Greg. VII. [Cf. Harduini Concil. vi.
1. p. 1586.]

t Brix. Syn. Epise. apud Abb. Ursperg. in Chron. ad
an. 1080. [Hildebrandum procacissimum, sacrilegia ac
incendia preedicantem, perjuria et homicidia defendentem,
catholicam et apostolicam fidem de corpore et sanguine
Domini in questionem ponentem, heretici Berengarii anti-
quum discipulum, divinationum ac somniorum cultorem,
manifestum necromanticum.— These are the words of a
council held at Brescia, consisting of thirty French and
Italian bishops. |

[§ Corde eredo et ore profiteor panem et vinum, que
ponuntur in altari, per mysterium sacre orationis et verba
nostri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram ac
propriam et vivificatricem carnem et sanguinem Domini
nostri Jesu Christi, et post consecrationem esse verum

180 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

that Roman faith,”’* yet there are ancienter than
*het who say, that he was never converted from
his first opinion.t And some relate, “ that
after this last condemnation; having given over
his studies, and given to the poor all he had, he
wrought with his own hands for his living.’’§
Other things related of him, by some slaves of
the Roman see, deserve no credit.. These things
happened, as we have said, in the year 1079; and
soon after, Berengarius died.

13. Berengarius being dead, the orthodox and
ancient doctrine of the Lord’s supper, which he
maintained, did not die with him (as the Chro-

Christi corpus quod natum est de virgine, et quod pro
salute mundi oblatum in cruce perpendit—non tantum
per signum et virtutem sacramenti, sed et in proprietate
nature et veritate substantie. Harduini Concil. ib. 1585. ]

* De Gest. Angl. iii. 58; et post eum ab aliis. Vide
Bell. Chronol. an. 1079.

+ Pegm. Comment. 31. ad 2 part. direct. inquisit.

{ Bertoldi Constantiensis (qui tempore Berengar. vixit)
in [Appendice ad] Chron. [Hermanni] ad an. 1083. [Be-
rengarius, nove heresis de corpore Domini auctor, eo
tempore deficiens abiit in locum suum, qui licet eandem
heeresin seepissime in synodo abjuravit, ad vomitum tamen
suum canino more non expavit redire. Nam et in Romana
synodo canonice convictus heresin suam in libro a se de-
scriptam combussit et abjuratam anathematizavit, nec tamen
postea dimisit. |

§ Vincent. in Spec. xxvi. 40. Baron. ad an. 1088,
§ 15, &e,.

¥

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 181

nicon Cassinense* would have it); for it was
still constantly retained by St. Bernard, abbot of
Clairvaux, who lived about the beginning of the
twelfth century.t In his discourse on the Lord’s
suppert he joins together “ the outward form of
the sacrament” and “the spiritual efficacy of it,”
as the shell and the kernel, the sacred sign and
the thing signified; the one he takes out of the
words of the institution, and the other out of
Christ’s sermon in the sixth of St. John. And in
the same place, explaining that sacraments are not
things absolute’”’ in themselves, without any
relation, but mysteries, wherein by the gift of a
visible sign, an invisible and divine grace with
the body and blood of Christ is given, he saith,
** That the visible sign is as a ring, which is given

* iii. 33, + A.D. 1120.

t Sermo de Coena Dom. [Opera, p. 890, ed. 1690.
Sacramentum dicitur sacrum signum sive sacrum secretum.
Multa siquidem fiunt propter se tantum ; alia vero propter
alia designanda, et ipsa dicuntur signa et sunt. Ut enim
de usualibus sumamus exemplum: datur anulus absolute
propter anulum, et nulla est significatio: datur ad inves-
tiendum de heereditate aliqua, et signum est, ita ut jam
dicere possit qui accipit: Anulus non valet quicquam, sed
heereditas est quam querebam. In hunc itaque modum
appropinquans passioni Dominus, de gratia sua investire
curavit suos, ut invisibilis gratia signo aliquo visibili pre-
staretur. Ad hoc instituta sunt omnia sacramenta, ad hoc
eucharistie participatio. |

182 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

not for itself or absolutely, but to invest and give

* possession of an estate made over to one. Many ~

things (saith he) are done for their own sake, and
many in reference to something else, and then
they are called signs. A ring is given absolutely
as a gift, and then it hath no other meaning: it is
also given to make good an investiture or contract,
and then it is a sign; so that he that receives
it may say, ‘the ring is not worth much; it is
what it signifies, the inheritance, I value.’ In this
manner, when the passion of our Lord drew nigh,
He took care that His disciples might be invested
with His grace, that His invisible grace might be
assured and given to them by a visible sign. To
this end all sacraments are instituted, and to this
the participation of the eucharist is appointed.”
Now, as no man can fancy that the ring is sub-
stantially changed into the inheritance, whether
lands or houses, none also can say with truth, or
without absurdity, that the bread and wine are
substantially changed into the body and blood of
Christ. But in his sermon on the purification,*
which none doubts to be his, he speaks yet more
plain; “The body of Christ in the sacrament is
the food of the soul, not of the belly ; therefore we
eat Him not corporally ; but in the manner that
Christ is meat, in the same manner we understand
that He is eaten.’ Also in his sermon on St.
* Sermo de Purif. B. Marie (?). -

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 183

Martin,* which undoubtedly is his also; “ To
this day (saith he) the same flesh is given to us,
but spiritually, therefore not corporally.”’ For
the truth of things spiritually present is certain
also. As to whathe saith in another place, “ that
the priest holds God in his hands,” it is a flourish
of oratory; as is that of St. Chrysostom, “in
comes the priest carrying the Holy Ghost.’’+

14. About the same time Rupertus,t abbot of
Tuitium, famous by his writings, did also teach
that the substance of the bread in the eucharist is
not converted, but remains. These be his words ;
*“You must attribute all to the operation of the
Holy Ghost, who never spoils or destroys any
substance He useth, but to that natural goodness
it had before, adds an invisible excellency which
it had not.Ӥ He hath indeed an unwarrantable
opinion of the union of the bread and body of

* Sermo de 8. Martino [p. 1052. Usque hodie eadem
caro nobis, sed spiritualiter, utique non carnaliter exhi-
beatur. | |

+ De Sacerdotio, iii. [§ 4. 0b wip Karadépwy, Grad 7d
mvedua Td &ytov. |

y.A.D. 1125.

§ In Exod. ii. 10. [Operatione Spiritus Sancti panis
corpus, vinum fit sanguis Christi.—Totum attribuetis ope-
rationi Spiritus Sancti, cujus affectus non est destruere vel
corrumpere substantiam quamcumque suos in usus assumit,
sed substantize bono permanenti quod erat, invisibiliter
adjicere quod non erat. |

184 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Christ into one person ;* but it came (as some
others as absurd'in that age) from too great a
curiosity about determining the manner of Christ’s
presence, and of the union of His body with the
bread, about which that learned man troubled
himself too much. However, he neither taught
nor mentioned transubstantiation.

15. Not long after that Algerus, a monk, and
some others, had had some disputes about this
subject, Peter Lombard+ made up his books of
sentences, in the fourth whereof he treats of the
eucharist, and thinks that it is taught by some
sayings of the ancients, “ that the substance of
the bread and wine is changed into the body and
blood of Christ.”? But soon after he adds;
“If it be demanded, what manner of change
that is, whether formal, or substantial, or of any
other kind, that I cannot resolve.”t Therefore
he did not yet hold transubstantiation as a point
of faith: nay, he doth not seem constant to
himself in making it a probable opinion, but

* Ex quo sequitur, panem esse corpus Christi, sed cor-
pus non humanum neque carneum, sed panaceum. [ Bel-
larmine, De Euch. iii. 11. ] + A.D. 1140.

t Sent. iv. Dist.10. [Satis responsum est hereticis et
objectionibus eorum qui negant verum corpus Christi in —
altari esse, et panem in corpus vel vinum in sanguinem
mystica consecratione converti.— Dist. 11. Si autem que-

ritur qualis sit illa conversio, an formaliter, an substanti-
aliter, vel alterius generis, diffinire non sufficio. ]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 185

rather to waver, to say and unsay, and to shelter
his cause under the fathers’ name, rather than
maintain it himself. Of the accidents remaining
without a subject, and of the breaking into parts
the body of Christ, (as Berengarius was bid to
say by Pope Nicholas,) he reasons strangely, but
very poorly.

16. Otho, bishop of Frisingen,* as great by
his piety and learning as by his blood, (for he
was nephew to Henry the Fourth, and the Em-
peror Henry the Fifth married his sister; he was
also uncle to Frederick, and half-brother to King
Conrad,) lived about the same time. He believed
and writ, “ that the bread and wine remain in
the eucharist ;’+ as did many more in that age.

17. As for the new-coined word transubstan-
tiation, it is hardly to be found before the mid-
dle of this century.{ For the first that mention
it are Petrus Blesensis,§ who lived under Pope
Alexander the Third, and Stephen Eduensis,|| a
bishop, whose age and writings are very doubt-
ful. And those later authors, who make it as
ancient as the tenth century, want sufficient wit-
nesses to prove it by, as I said before.**

* a.p. 1145.

+ Christ. Agric, in Antipist. p. 18 (?).

f-a.D. 1180, § In Epistola 140.

|| De Sacr, Altaris, in B.B. Patrum. [vol. x. p. 412.]
{| Bellarmin. et Possevin de Script. Ecclesiast. in vita.
** Chap. v. art. 50.

186 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

18. The thirteenth century now follows, where-
“in, the world growing both older and worse, a
great deal of trouble and confusion there was
about religion ;* the bishop of Rome exalted
himself not only into his lofty chair, over the
universal Church, but even into a majestical
throne, over all the empires and kingdoms of
the world. New orders of friars sprung up in
this age, who disputed and clamoured fiercely
against many doctrines of the ancienter and
purer Church, and amongst the rest against that
of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ :
so that now there remained nothing but to con-
firm the new tenet of transubstantiation, and
impose it so peremptorily on the Christian world,
that none might dare so much as to hiss against
it. This Pope Innocent the Third bravely per-
formed. He succeeding Celestin the Third at
thirty years of age, and marching stoutly in the
footsteps of Hildebrand, called a council at Rome
in St. John Lateran, and was the first that ever
presumed to make the new-devised doctrine of
transubstantiation an article of faith necessary to
salvation, and that by his own mere authority.
19. How much he took upon himself, and
what was the man’s spirit and humour, will easily
appear to any man by these his words which I
here set down; ‘To me it is said in the prophet,

‘* a.D. 1215. Innocen. III. Papa.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 187

‘I have set thee over nations and over kingdoms,
to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy,
and to throw down, and to build, and to plant.’
To me also it is said, in the person of the apostle,
‘To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of
heaven.” For I am in a middle state betwixt
God and man, below God, but above man; yea,
greater than man, being I judge all men, and
can be judged by none.* Am not I the bride-
groom, and each of you the bridegroom’s friend ?
The bridegroom I am, because I have the bride,
the noble, rich, lofty, and holy Church of Rome,
who is the mother and mistress of all the faithful.

* TInnocentius III. [in Consecratione Pontificis maximi |
Sermo 2. [vol. i. p. 189. ed. Colon. 1575. Mihi namque
dicitur in propheta: ‘‘ Constitui te super gentes et regna,
ut evellas et destruas et disperdas et dissipes et edifices et
plantes.” Mihi quoque dicitur in apostolo: “Tibi dabo
claves regni ccelorum, et quodcumque ligaveris super terram
erit ligatum et in ceelis,” &c. Cum omnibus apostolis lo-
queretur particulariter dixit : ‘‘ Quorum remiseritis peccata
remittuntur eis, et quorum retinueritis retenta sunt.” Cum
autem soli Petro loqueretur universaliter ait : ‘‘ Quodcum-
que ligaveris super terram erit ligatum et in ccelis,’”’ &e.
quia Petrus ligare potest ceeteros, sed ligari non potest a
ceeteris.—Jam ergo videtis quis iste sit servus, qui super
familiam constituitur, profecto vicarius Jesu Christi, suc-
cessor Petri, Christus Domini, Deus Pharaonis, inter Deum
et hominem medius constitutus, citra Deum, sed ultra ho-
minem ; minor Deo, sed major homine; qui de omnibus
judicat, et a nemine judicatur. |

188 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Who hath brought me a precious and inestimable
portion, to wit, the fulness of things spiritual,
and the vastness of temporal, with the greatness
and multitude of both.* God made two great
lights in the firmament of heaven; He hath also
made two great lights in the firmament of the
universal Church, that is, He hath instituted two
dignities, which are the papal authority and the
regal. But that which governs the day, that is,
spiritual things, is the greater, and that which
governs carnal things the less; so that it ought
to be acknowledged that there is the same differ-
ence between the (Roman) high priest and kings
as between the sun and moon.’’+ Thus he, when

* Idem, Serm. 3, [ De Consecratione Pont. ib. p. 192.
Annon ego sponsus sum, et quilibet vestrum amicus sponsi ?
Utique sponsus quia habeo nobilem, divitem et sublimem,
decoram, castam, gratiosam, sacrosanctam Romanam ec-
clesiam, quze disponente Deo cunctorum fidelium mater
est et magistra.—p. 194. Hee autem sponsa non nupsit
vacua, sed dotem mihi tribuit absque pretio pretiosam,
spiritualium videlicet plenitudinem, et latitudinem tem-
poralium, magnitudinem et multitudinem utrorumque. |
Addit: Multe filie congregaverunt divitias, hee autem
sola supergressa est universas. |

+ Epist. ad Imper. Constant. Extra. de Major. et Obe-
dientia, c. 6. [Gesta Innocentii III. vol. i. 29. ed. 1632.
Ad firmamentum igitur cceli, hoc est, universalis ecclesie, .
fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, id est, duas magnas in-
stituit dignitates, quee sunt pontificalis auctoritas et regalis
potestas: sed illa que preest diebus, id est, spiritualibus,

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 189

he was become Christ’s vicar, or rather His rival.
These things I rehearse that we may see how
things went, and what was the face of the Latin
Church, when Pope Innocent the Third pro-
pounded and imposed transubstantiation as an
article of faith; as is plainly and at large set
down by a learned author, George Calixtus,* who
deserves equally to be praised and imitated.

20. This Innocent, therefore, who, to increase
his power and authority, wrought great troubles
_to the Emperor Philip, stripped Otho the Fourth
of the empire, forced John king of England to
yield up into his hand this kingdom and that of
Ireland, and make them tributary to the see of
Rome; who, under pretence of a spiritual juris-
diction, took to himself both the supreme power
over things temporal and the things themselves ;
who “was proud and ambitious beyond all men,
covetous to the height of greediness” (they -are
the words of Matthew Paris), “ and ever ready to
commit the most wicked villanies, so he might be
recompensed for it;’’+ this, I say, was the man

major est, que vero carnalibus minor est: ut quanta est
inter solem et lunam, tanta inter pontifices et reges dif-
ferentia cognoscatur. |

* Exerc. de Transubst. [Not in the Museum or Sion
College.]|

+ In Hist. Johan. Regis Anglie [p. 245. ed. 1640, No-
verat autem et multiplici didicerat experientia, quod papa

e

190 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

who in his Lateran council propounded that tran-
substantiation should be made an article of faith;
and when the council would not grant it, did it
himself by his own arbitrary power, against which
none durst open his mouth.* For those canons,
which this day are shewn about under the name
of the council, are none of his, but merely the
decrees of Pope Innocent, first writ by him, and
read in the council, and disliked by many,f and
afterwards set down in the book of decretals,
under certain titles, by his nephew Gregory the
Ninth.

21. The same pope, after he had pronounced
them heretics who for the future should deny that
“the body and blood of Christ are duly contained
in the sacrament of the altar under the outward
form of bread and wine, the bread being tran-
substantiated into the body, and the wine into the
blood, delivers them all, of what office or dignity
soever, to the secular power to receive condign
punishment,”’{ that is, to be burnt; commands
those that are suspected to be tried and examined ;

super omnes mortales ambitiosus erat et superbus, pecu-
nique sitior insatiabilis, et ad omnia scelera pro preemiis
datis vel promissis cereum et proclivum. ]

* Mat. Paris in Hist. min. et Platin. in vita Innoe. III.

+ Verba Mat. Paris, in Hist. majori, ad an. 1215.
[ Aliis placabilia, aliis videbantur onerosa. ]

t Extr. de fide et sum. Trin. c. Firmiter credimus.

a nF
Ff ee

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 191

and declares them infamous, disabled from making
a will, and incapable of any office or inheritance,
that should favour or entertain them, and sets all
other Christians against them. Then he ordains,
“that the secular powers shall be compelled by
ecclesiastic censures publicly to swear that they
will defend (this) faith, and endeavour utterly to
destroy all whom the Church (of Rome) should
note for heretics. But (saith he) if the temporal
prince doth neglect this, let him be excommuni-
cated: and if he slights to give satisfaction within
a year, let the sovereign pontiff be certified of it,
that he may absolve his subjects from their alle-
giance, and expose his territories to be taken and
enjoyed without any contradiction by any catholics
(Romans) that destroy the heretics,”* &c., that
is, those who do not believe transubstantiation.
Thus Innocent the Third, by excommunications
and by arms, by rebellions, by tortures, and by
burning alive, was pleased to establish his new
article of faith.

22. And, truly, had he not used such means,
they themselves who did cleave to the Church of
Rome would not have embraced this doctrine ;
for it did not find such acceptance, but that many
notwithstanding did now and then oppose it.
Nay, not only transubstantiation, but even the
Church (or rather the court) of Rome, which, if

* Thid.

192 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

we believe Chancellor Gerson, ‘‘ was at this time
wholly brutish and carnal, without almost any
sense of the things of God,’* was rejected by
many, as it is well known. For certain it is that
transubstantiation, being once established, there
was a foundation laid to many superstitions and
errors, which could neither be suffered nor ap-
proved by those that feared God.t And among
the subscribers to transubstantiation there grew a
thicket of thorny and monstrous questions, where-
with the schoolmen were so busy, that it may
with great truth be affirmed, that then came to

* Gerson, De Concilio generali. [Opera, ii. 27. Que
reddiderunt ecclesiam totam brutalem et carnalem, nihil
fere sapientem de his que Dei sunt. |

[+ “The first definition or determination of this manner
of the presence was yet later [than Berengarius], in the
council of Lateran, in the days of Innocent III., after the
year 1200. Ante Lateranense concilium transubstantiatio
non fuit dogma fidei. (Scotus in 4 Sent. dist. ii. q. 3.)
And what the fruit of it was, let Vasquez bear witness :
Audito nomine transubstantiationis, &c. ‘The very name of
transubstantiation being but heard, so great a controversy
did arise among the later schoolmen concerning the nature
thereof, that the more they endeavoured to wind them-
selves out, the more they wrapped themselves in greater
difficulties, whereby the mystery of faith became more dif-
ficult both to be explained and to be understood, and more
exposed to the cavils of its adversaries.’ He adds, ‘That the
names of conversion and transubstantiation gave occasion
to these controversies.’” —BRAMHALL’S Answer to Mili-

tiere, p. 18.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 193

light a divinity concerning the holy sacrament,
and the adoration of it, which was not only very
new, but very strange also, and never heard of
among the fathers. There grew also out of the
same stock illusions and false miracles, deceitful
dreams, feigned visions, and such-like unchristian
devices about the corporal presence of Christ, as
that some did see a child in the host, some flesh,
some blood, any thing that could come into the
idle fancies of idle and superstitious men. ‘ One*
at the point of death durst not receive the body
of Christ, because he could keep nothing in; but
as he drew nigh to adore it, his breast bare and
his arms open, the host, leaping out of the priest’s
hand, having made itself a passage, entered of its
own accord into the place where the dying man’s
heart lay hid, and the hole being made up again
without any thing of a scar, the man lay down
and then expired.”+ “ Another, being ready to
die, begged that, his side being washed and co-
vered with a clean cloth, the body of Christ
might be set on it; which being done, the cloth
by degrees gave place to the body of Christ,
and soon after, when that divine body touched the
man’s skin, it penetrated to his very heart, in the

[* Otho ab imperio judicio ecclesize depositus. Thom.
de Walsingham, ut infra, an. 1214. ] )

+ Thomas de Walsingham, in Hypod. Neustrie, ad
an. 1215.

K

194 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

sight of all the by-standers.”* They also tell the
story, or rather the fable; ‘“‘ How that the body
of Christ” (for so they call the consecrated bread)
‘* being set in a bushel upon some oats, an horse,
an ox, and an ass, bowed their knees, and adored
their Lord in the host.” These and such-like
fictions were daily invented without number by
the patrons of transubstantiation ; and the impu-
dence and boldness of coining such forgeries hath
from them past upon their successors. This was
observed by King James in the writings of Bel-
larminet himself, who reports “ of a certain de-
vout mare” that worshipped the host kneeling ;
knowing, doubtless, that by a due consecration it
was transubstantiated. Cesarius the monk, who
lived soon after Innocent III., is full of such
miracles; and yet he hath a history which shews |
that in his time transubstantiation was utterly
unknown to a learned priest, canon of a great
church. ‘ At Cologne,” saith he, “ there was a
canon in full orders, called Peter, when on a cer-
tain day another of the canons was sick, and about
to receive the sacrament in his presence, the offi-
ciating priest asked the sick man, Dost thou be-
lieve that this is the true body of the Lord which
was born of the Virgin? He made answer, I be-
lieve it. Peter hearing and observing their words

* Discip. de Temp. Serm. 80.
_ + Car. Bellarm. Apol, q. 182. -

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 195

was amazed at them. Afterwards he coming alone
to Everhardus the professor of divinity, who had
been also present at the communion, he asked
him, Did the priest question the sick man aright?
He answered yes; and whoever believes other-
wise is an heretic.* Then Peter, weeping, and
smiting his breast, cried out, Wo is me, wretched
priest! how have I hitherto said mass! for to
this hour I thought that the bread and wine after
the consecration were only a sacrament, that is,
the sign and representation of the Lord’s body
and blood.”

23. I have already touched it, that, together
with the new doctrine of transubstantiation, there
sprung up new sects of friars, which indeed in a
short time increased beyond belief. For now to
the order of Dominicans (whom Innocent III.
had made his inquisitors, to kill and burn here-
tics)+ was added the order of begging Francis-
cans; and the Augustine eremits and the Car-
melites were set up again. From these came the
schoolmen, as we now call them, whose studies
(as studies were in that time) were all employed
about commenting on Peter Lombard, master of
the sentences.

24. These men tired their brains (as we said)
about unheard-of questions touching transubstan-

* For so it was decreed by Innocent III.
+ Meaning those that deny transubstantiation,

196 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

_ tiation, such as pious ears would abhor to hear.
For they ask, 1. Whether that be the body of
Christ which sometimes appears in the form of ©
flesh, or of a child on the altar? And answer that
they know not, ‘‘ because such apparitions hap-
pen often, and are caused either by men’s jug-
gling, or by the operation of the devil.”* 2. Whe-
ther the mice (who sometimes feast upon the hosts,
when they are not well shut up) eat the body of
Christ itself? Or if a dog or a hog should swal-
low down the consecrated host whole, whether
the Lord’s body should pass into their belly
together with the accidents?+ Some indeed an-
swer (other some being otherwise minded) that,
“though the body of Christ enters not into the
brute’s mouth as corporeal meat, yet it enters
together with the appearances, by reason that they
are inseparable one from the other,”’{ (mere non-

* Alex. de Ales. p. 4. q.53. m. 4. [art. 1. f. 216, b. Sed
queeritur si post consecrationem apparet revera caro Christi
in sua forma, ut si appareret in forma unius pueri, &c.—
Hujusmodi apparitiones quandoque accidunt humana pro-
curatione et sorte diabolica. |

+ Idem, q. 45. m. 1. a, 2. [Quidam enim opinantur
quia corpus Christi continetur in illis speciebus insepara-
biliter quamdiu sunt sacramenta. Hoc autem est quamdiu
salva est forma panis.—Si enim canis vel porcus deglutiret
hostiam consecratam integram, non video quare vel quando
corpus Domininon simul cum specie trajiceretur in ventrem
canis vel porci. | |

[t Dicendum quod corpus Christi non intrat in os bruti

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 197

sense) ; “ for as long as the accidents of the bread”’
(i.e. the shape, and taste, and colour, &c.) “remain
in their proper being, so long is the body of
Christ inseparably joined with them; wherefore
if the accidents in their nature pass into the belly,
or are cast out by vomiting,* the body of Christ
itself must of necessity go along with them: and
for this cause pious souls” (I repeat their own
words) “do frequently eat again with great rever-
ence the parts of the host cast out by vomiting.”
Others answer also, “ That a beast eats not the
body of Christ sacramentally, but accidentally, as
a man that should eat a consecrated host, not
knowing that it was consecrated.”+ 3. They in-
quire about musty and rotten hosts; and because
the body of Christ is incorruptible, and not sub-
ut cibus corporalis, quia nullo modo esset cibus corporalis,
sed solummodo ipsa species que dicitur; sed in ipsum
corpus simul intrat cum specie, ratione inseparabilitatis
unius ab alio. Ales. ib. f. ec, b.]

* Ibid. q. 53. m, 3. [Aliter autem potest dici, se. quod
ex quo ita est quod species panis persistat, in esse suo vero
consistit inseparabiliter corpus ChristiimEt ab hoc solent
anime pie frequenter partes hostie ejectas per vomitum
cum magna reverentia iterato sumere. ]

+ Tho. Aq. Sum. p. 3. q. 80. ¢. 8. [Dicendum est quod
animal brutum sacramentaliter corpus Christi manducat,
quia non est natum uti eo ut sacramento. Unde non sacra-
mentaliter, sed per accidens, corpus Christi manducat, sicut

manducearet ille, qui sumeret hostiam consecratam, nesciens
eam esse consecratam. |

198 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

| ject to putrefaction, therefore they answer, “ That
the hosts are never so; and that though they ap-
pear as if they were, yet in reality they are not;
as Christ appeared as a gardener, though he was
no gardener.”** 4. They demand concerning in-
digested hosts, which passing through the belly
are cast into the draught, or concerning those
that are cast into the worst of sinks, or into the
dirt, whether such hosts cease to be the body
of Christ? and answer, “ That whether they be
cast into the sink or the privy, ‘as long as the
appearances remain, the body of Christ is insepa-
rable from them.’’+ And for the contrary opinion,
they say that it is not tenable, and that it is not
safe for any to hold it, because the popet hath
forbid it should be maintained under pain of ex-
communication. Therefore the modern school-
men add, ‘ That if any should hold the contrary,
after the pope’s determination, he should be con-
demned by the Church” (of Rome, that is). Nay,
they hold it to be a point of faith which none
may doubt of, “ because the contrary doctrine hath

* Alger De Sacramento, ii. 1. [Nec solum corpori
Christo, sed et ipsi sacramento visibili eadem causa muco-
rem negamus et putredinem.—Possunt tamen [species]
videri mucide et putride, quamvis ita non sint; sicut
Christus hortulanus, peregrinus, prout erant intuentium

mentes. |
+ Thom. in 4. dist, 9. q. 2. a. 1, Brulif. in 4. dist. 13. q.5.
t Greg. Papa XI. [see above, p. 189. ]

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 199

been condemned by Pope Gregory XI.’’* 5. They
ask concerning the accidents, whether the body
of Christ be under them when they are abstracted
from their subject? This is against logic. Or
whether worms be gendered, or mice nourished
of accidents? And this against physic. 6. Whe-
ther the body of Christ can at the very same time
move both upwards and downwards, one priest
lifting up the host, and another setting it down?
And | know not how many more such thorny
questions have wearied and nonplussed them and
all their school, and brought them to such straits
and extremities, that they know not what to re-
solve, nor what shifts to make. And truly it had
been very happy for religion, if, as the ancients
never touched or mentioned transubstantiation, so
latter times had never so much as heard of its
name: for God made his sacrament upright (as
he did man), but about it they have sought out
many inventions.t

25. Likewise, this transubstantiation hath
given occasion to some most wicked and impi-
ous wretches to abuse and profane most unwor-
thily what they thought to be the body of Christ :
for instances may be brought of some wicked

* Soto in 4. dist. 12. q. 1. a.3. Vasq. in 3. disp. 195,
¢.5. Direct. Inquis. p. 1. n. 5. et p. 2. g.10. [quoted at
p- 139. |

+ Ecel. vii, 29.

200 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,

priests who for filthy lucre have sold some con-
secrated hosts to Jews and sorcerers, who have
stabbed and burnt them, and used them for witch-
craft and enchantments. Nay, we read that St.
Lewis* himself (very ill advised in that) gave
once to the Turks and Saracens a consecrated
host as a pledge of his promise, and an assurance
of peace. Now, can any one who counts these
things abominable persuade himself that our
blessed Saviour would have appointed that His
most holy body should be present in His Church
in such a manner as that it should come into the
hands of His greatest enemies and the worst of
infidels, and be eaten by dogs and rats, and be
vomited up, burnt, cast into sinks, and used for
magical poisons and witchcraft? I mention these
with horror and trembling, and therefore abstain
from raking any more in this dunghill.

26. No wonder, therefore, if this new doc-
trine of Innocent III., being liable to such foul
absurdities and detestable abuses, ‘* few men could
be persuaded,” in the fourteenth century, “ that
the body of Christ is really (or by transubstantia-
tion) in the sacrament of the altar;”’ as it-is re-
corded by our countryman Robert Holkot,t who
lived about the middle of that century. As also
Thomas Aquinas reports of some in his time,

* Leuncl. de Rebus Ture. § 116.
+ In 4. q. 3. an. 1850.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 201

*“ who believed that after consecration, not only
the accidents of the bread, but its substantial form
remained.’’* And Albertus Magnus himself, who
was Thomas’s tutor, and writ not long after Inno-
cent III., speaks of transubstantiation as of a
doubtful question only. Nay, that it was abso-
lutely rejected and opposed by many, is generally
known; for the anathema of Trent had not yet
backed the Lateran decree.

27. As for the rest of the schoolmen (espe-
cially the modern), who are, as it were, sworn to
Pope Innocent’s determination, they use to ex-
press their belief in this matter with great words,
but neither pious nor solid, in this manner:
*“The common opinion is to be embraced, not
because reason requires it, but because it is de-
termined by the bishop of Rome.”’t Item, “That
ought to be of the greatest weight that we must
hold with the holy Church of Rome about the
sacraments: now it holds that the bread is tran-
substantiated into the body, and the wine into the
blood, as it is clearly said, Extra. De summa Tri-

* (Summa Theologie] 3. q. 75. [concl. vi. Quidam
posuerunt quod facta consecratione non solum remanent
accidentia panis, sed etiam forma substantialis ejus. ]

+ Th. Argentina, in 4. d. 11. q. 1. art. 2. [Jam dictam
igitur conversionem teneo, non propter aliquam rationem
cogentem, sed propter sanctorum auctoritatem et sancte
matris ecclesize determinationem.— Quod etiam istud de-
terminatum sit per Romanam ecclesiam, etc. |

K 2

202 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION:

_ nitate et fide, cap. § Firmiter.’”’* Again; “TI prove
that of necessity the bread is changed into the
body of Christ ; for we must hold that declaration
of faith which the pope declares must be held.” +
Thus, among the papists, if it be the pleasure of
an imperious pope, as was Innocent III., doc-
trines of faith shall now and then increase in bulk
and number, though they be such as are most
contrary to holy Scripture, though they were
never heard of in the primitive Church, and
though from them such consequences necessarily
follow as are most injurious to Christ and His
holy religion. For after Innocent III. the Roman
faith was thus much increased{ by the determina-
tion of Pope Gregory XI.,§ that, if it so happens,
the body of Christ in the consecrated host may
descend into a rat’s belly, or into a privy, or any
such foul place.

* Scot. in 4. dist. 11. q. 3. [f. 56, b. ed. Venet. 1598.
Principaliter autem videtur movere, quod de sacramentis
tenendum est sicut tenet sancta Romana ecclesia, sicut
habetur Extra. de hereticis. “‘ Ad abolendam.” Nunc au-
tem ipsa tenet panem transubstantiari in corpus et vinum
in sanguinem, sicut manifeste habetur Extra. de sum. tri.
et fide, cap. ‘‘ Firmiter.” | |

+ Bacon, in 4. dist. 8. q. 1. a. 2. [Probo quod necessario
continetur sub fide, quod panis convertitur in corpus Christi;
nam, ut dictum est, oportet declarationem fidei tenere quam
Romanus pontifex tenendam declarat. |

{ Ut supra, art. 24. : § A.D. 1371.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 203

28. In the fifteenth century the council of
Constance* (which by a sacrilegious attempt took
away the sacramental cup from the people, and
from the priests when they do not officiate) did
wrongfully condemn Wiclif, who was already
dead, because amongst other things he had taught,
with the ancients, “‘ That the substance of the
bread and wine remains materially in the sacra-
ment of the altar; and that in the same sacra-
ment no accidents of bread and wine remain
without a substance :” which two assertions are
most true.

29. Cardinal Cameracensis, who lived about
the time of the council of Constance,t doth not
seem to own the decree of Pope Innocent as the
determination of the Church. For that the bread
should still remain, he confesseth, ‘‘ That it is pos-
sible; that it is not against reason or the autho-
rity of the Bible:” { but concerning’ the con-
version of the bread he says, “ That clearly it
cannot be inferred from Scripture, nor yet from
the determination of the Church,” as he judgeth.
Yet because the common opinion was otherwise,
he, yielding to the times, was fain to follow,
though with some reluctancy..

30. The council of Florence,§ which was not
long after, did not at all treat with the Greeks

* ap. 1415. + A.D. 1420.
t In 4. q, 6,.a. 2. § A.D, 1439,

204 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION,

about transubstantiation, nor the consecration of
the sacrament, but left them undetermined, with
many other controversies. But that which is called
the Armenians’ instruction* (and in this cause and
almost all disputes is cited as the decree of the
general council of Florence, by Soto,+ Bellar-
mine,t and the Roman catechism,§$) is no decree
of the council, as we have demonstrated some-
where else,|| but a false and forged decree of Pope
Eugenius [V., who doth indeed in that instruction
prescribe to the Armenians a form of doctrine
about the sacrament, saying, “ that by virtue of
the words of Christ the substance of the bread is
turned into His body, and the substance of the
wine into His blood.” But that he did it with the
approbation of the council, as he often says in his
decree, is proved to be altogether false, as well by
the acts of the council, as by the unanswerable
arguments of C. de Capite Fontium, archbishop
of Cesarea, in his book De necessaria Theolo-
gie Scholastice Correctione,q dedicated to Pope
Sixtus V. For how could the council of Florence
approve that decree which was made more than
three months after it was ended? it being certain
that after the council was done,** the Armenians,

* Instr. ad Armen. + In 4, dist. 11. q. 1. art. 2.
{ De Euch. 1. 4. ¢. 13. § Part. 2. c. 4. num. 18.

|| In the History of the Canon of Scripture, p. 158.

{ P. 51, 53, et 56. ** Ex Act. Cone. Flor.

HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 205

with the Greeks, having each of them signed
letters of union (which yet were not approved by
all, nor long in force after they were subscribed),
departed out of Florence July 22, whereas the
instruction was not given while November 22.
Therefore, by the mutual consent of both parties,
was nothing here done or decreed about transub-
stantiation, or the rest of the articles of the new
Roman faith. But Eugenius, or whoever was the
forger of the decree, put a cheat upon his
reader. Perhaps he had seen the same done by
Innocent III. or Gregory [X., in the pretended
decrees of the council of Lateran, which were the
pope’s only, but not the council’s. And certainly
it is more likely Eugenius did it rather to please
himself, than for any hopes he could have that ‘at
his command the Armenians would receive and
obey his instruction sooner than the Greeks: for
to this day “ the Armenians believe that the ele-
ments of bread and wine retain their nature in
the sacrament of the eucharist.”’*

31. By these any considering person may easily
see that transubstantiation is a mere novelty; not
warranted either by Scripture or antiquity; in-
vented about the middle of the twelfth century,
out of some misunderstood sayings of some of
the fathers ; confirmed by no ecclesiastic or papal
decree before the year 1215; afterwards received

* Joh. Lasic. de Relig. Armeniorum.

206 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

only here and there in the Roman Church; de-
_ bated in the schools by many disputes; liable to
many very bad consequences; rejected (for there
was never those wanting that opposed it) by many
great and pious men, until it was maintained in
the sacrilegious council of Constance ; and at last,
in the year 1551, confirmed in the council of
Trent,* by a few Latin bishops, slaves to the
Roman see; imposed upon all, under pain of an
anathema to be feared by none; and so spread too
too far, by the tyrannical and most unjust command
of the pope.t So that we have no reason to em-
brace it, until it shall be demonstrated that except
the substance of the bread be changed into the
very body of Christ, his words cannot possibly be
true, nor his body present: which will never be
done.

* Sess. 13. + Bulla Pii IV. de profess. fidei.

207

APPENDIX TO CHAP. VI.

Clemens Romanus, Constitutiones Apostolice, vi. 23. [avrt
bvolas THs BC aiudrwr, Aoyuchy Kal dvaluakroy, Kal Thy pvoTiKhy,
Artis eis Tov Odvarov Tov puplov cuuBdrAwy xdpiw émiTeAciTas TOU
ocdépatos avtod Kal Tod aluaros. Ib. c. 29: thy dytirumov Tod Ba-

athelov séuatos Xpiorov Sexthy evxapiotiay mpoopéepere.

Ignatius, Epistola ad Philadelph. [ula yap éorw 7 odpt Tov
xuplov *Inood Kad ev adrov 7d aiua, Td imtp Hua éxxubér. els Kal
pros Tots maow eOpipen, Kal ev morhpiov Tots bAas SieveuhOn. |

Theophilus, ad Autol. ii.

Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ. [§ 13. ri 5€ wor dAoKavtdécewv
év py Setrar 6 Oeds ; Kalror mpoopepew Séov avaluanrov Ouvciav, Kat
Thy AoyiKhy mpoodyew Aarpelay. |

Tatianus in Diatessaron [sub nomine Ammonii eyulgatum in
Bib. Patr. i. p. iii. Accepto pane, deinde vini calice, corpus esse
suum ac sanguinem testatus, manducare illos jussit et bibere, quod
ea sit futura calamitatis sue mortisque memoria. |

“Clemens Alexandrinus, Stromatai. [cwrhp &prov AaBov mparov
eadanoe kab ebxaplorncer, eira kAdoas Tov Uprov mpoebnKey, iva 5h
pdywouev AoyiKas. |

Pedagog. ii. (2. pvorindy &pa oduBorov h ypaph aluaros ayiov
olvoy wvduacer. |

Minutius Felix, in Octavio. [Bib. Pat. i. p.iii. 9, Quem colimus

208 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

‘Deum nec ostendimus nec videmus ; immo ex hoc Deum credimus,
quod eum sentire possumus, videre non possumus. ]

Eusebius, de Demonstratione Evangelica, i. 10. [rodrou 597
TOU Obuaros Thy uynuhy em Tpame (ns exrerEiv, did TUUBSAwY TOD TE
couaTos avTov Kat Tod owrnplov aluaros Kara Oecuods THS KaLWHS
Siabhuns maperAnpdres. mddw yap abtds Ta oiuBora Tis evOov
oikovoulas Tots adTod mapedldou uabyntais, Thy eikdva Tov idtov cdua-

Tos TotetoOon TapakeAcuduevos. |

Juvencus, de Historia Evangelica, iv. [Bib. Pat. iv. p. 20.

Hec ubi dicta dedit, palmis sibi frangere panem
Divisumque dehinc tradit, sancteque precatus
Discipulos docuit proprium se tradere corpus.

‘“~ _Hine calicem sumit Dominus vinoque repletum
Magnis sanctificat verbis, potumque ministrat,
Edocuitque suum se divisisse cruorem. _
Atque ait: Hic sanguis populi delicta remittit.
Hunc potate meum. |

Macarius Hgyptius, Hom. 37 [or 27. ofre avéBn abray én) Kap-
Stay Br. tora: Bdrricua mupds Kal mvedpatos wylov, Kal bri ev rH
exkAnola mpoopéperar pros Kat olvos avtitumoy tis capKkds avTod
kal oduartos, Kal of meradapBdvortes &x TOD paivouevov kprov, mvev-
MaTiK@s Thy cdpka Tod Kuplov écOlovor. |

Hilarius, in Matt. ch. ix. [In fide enim resurrectionis sacra-
mentum panis coelestis accipitur. Cap. xxxi. Sine quo pascha ac-
cepto calice et fracto pane conficitur. Dignus enim eternorum
sacramentorum communione non fuerat [Judas]. Et De Synodis
[§ 13. Neque enim ipse sibi quisquam imago est. ] .

Optatus, contra Parm. iii. [Vinum a peccatoribus operariis
et calcatur et premitur, et sic inde Deo sacrificium offertur. In
Bib. Pat. iv. 281.]

APPENDIX TO CHAP. VI. 209

Eusebius Emissenus [sive Gallicanus], Homil. de Corpore
Christi, [sive Homilia v. de Pascha, in Bib. Pat. v. 560. Quia
corpus assumptum oblaturus erat ex oculis nostris et sideribus
illaturus, necessarium erat, ut nobis in hac die sacramentum corporis
et sanguinis sui consecraret, ut colentur jugiter per mysterium
quod semel offerebatur in pretium. ]

Gregorius Nazianzenus, Oratio funebris [xi.], de Gorgonia.
[efra TG wap’ éavrijs papudny toltw Td cGpua way emidelpovoa, kal
elmov Tt Tav dytiTimwy TOD TYulov GeopaTos 7 TOU aiwatos 7 xele

eOnoadpicrer. |

Cyrillus Alexandrinus, in Johan. xx. 29, [rls &v atrots mAnpo-
popias ert SiagKhs eyévero tpdmos ovk byTos Mev emi Yijs TwuaTiK@s
ert Xpiorod, dvaBeRnkdros 5& wGAAov eis ovpavods ; |

Epiphanius, in Anchorato. [dp@uev drt ZAaBev 6 owrhp eis Tas
xelpas abrod ws tye ev TH evayyeAly, Ori aveotn ev TH Selnvy
kal érAaBe rdde. nad ebyapiorhoas elre, TodTS pov éor: Td5e. Kal
bp@pev Bri odk toov early, ovdt Suorov, od TH evodpKy eikdu, ov TH
dopdrp Oedrynti, ov Trois xapakTipor Tav meAGv. Td wey yap eae
oTpoyyvaoeses kal dvaloOnrov ds mpbs Thy Stvapuuv. |

Hieronymus, contra Jovin, ii. [Dominus in typo sanguinis sui
non obtulit aquam, sed vinum.] Ser. 31. [Super frumento et vino
et oleo, de quo conficitur panis, Domini et sanguinis ejus impletur
typus.; In Mat. xxvi. [Audiamus panem quem fregit Dominus
deditque discipulis suis esse corpus Domini Salvatoris, ipso dicente
ad eos, Accipite et comedite, hoc est corpus meum. ]

Theophilus Alexandrinus, Epist. Pasch. [in Bib. Pat. iv. 712.
Non recogitat [Origenes] aquas in baptismate mysticas adventu
S. Spiritus consecrari, panemque Domini cum quo Salvatoris cor-
pus ostenditur, et quem frangimus in sanctificationem nostri, et
sacrum calicem que in mensa ecclesie collocantur, et utique in-
anima sunt per invocationem et adventum Sancti Spiritus sancti-
ficari. ]

910 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

S. Gaudentius [Brixiensis, de Pasche observatione tract. ii.
in Bib. Pat. iv. p. 807. Quod autem sacramenta corporis sui et
sanguinis in specie panis et vini offerenda constituit, duplex ratio
est.—Deinde quomodo panem de multis tritici granis in pollinem
redactis per aquam confici et per ignem necesse est consummari ;
rationabiliter in eo figura accipitur corporis Christi. ]

Sedulius, in Epist. S. Pauli [vi. in Bib. Pat. v. Ipsius pignus
et imaginem. |

Gennadius Massiliensis, de Dogm. Eccl. c. 25. [The passages
from this and the following author to which Dr. Cosin refers, I
have not been able to find. }

Faustus, Homil. 2 in Epiphan.

Ferrandus Diaconus, in Epistola ad Severum [in Biblioth. Pat.
vi. p. 360. Ideo est filius hominis in coelo, quia ibi est semper filius
Dei qui factus est filius hominis. ]

Fulgentius Africanus, de Fide, [c. 19. Sacrificium panis et
vini, in fide et charitate, sancta ecclesia catholica per universum
orbem terree offerre non cessat. ]

Victor Antiochenus, Com. in Marc. c. 14. [Per panis quidem

symbolum corporis Christi, per calicem vero ejusdem sanguinis
participes se fieri. In Bib. Pat. iv. 330.]

Primasius, in Epist. ad i. Corinth. x. [Panis quem frangimus,
nonne participatio corporis Domini est? Sic et idolorum panis
dzmonum participatio est. Ib. vi. 2. 60.]

Procopius Gazzeus, in Genes. 49. [ydAa 7d Aaumpdy Sroonuatver
Kat Kabapdy Tis pvoTnpi@dov Tpopijs’ mapedwxe yap cixdva Tod idlov

Témaros pabnrais, unkéeTs Tas vomKas Kal dv aiudrwy Ovolas mpooré-
KM p

hevos. Td Tolvuv &otou Td Kabapdy Tis Tpopis 51d TeV AevKay dddv-
Tov eofArwee. |

ee eS ee ee

or.

APPENDIX TO CHAP. VI. 911

Hesychius, in Levit. i. [2. In Bib. Pat. vii. 8. Carnem autem
ejus que ad comedendum inepta erat ante passionem (quis enim
comedere cupiebat carnem Dei ?), aptam cibo post passionem fecit ;
si enim non fuisset crucifixus, sacrificium corporis ejus minime
comederemus. Comedimus autem nunc cibum sumentes ejus
memoriam passionis. |

Maximus, in Hierarch. Dionys. [in c. 3. otuSoda tadra, kal
ovK GANPeLa. |

Johannes Damascenus, de Fide orthodoxa [iii. 3. més ula pvois
Tov évaytiwy ovowdav diaddpwy Sextikh yevhoera; mAs yap Suva-
toy Thy aithy obow Kara Tabtdy KTioThy elvan Kal &KTicTOY OvnThY

ka) &Odvarov, weprypamThy Kat dareplyparror ; |

Nicephorus [Constantinopolitanus], de Cherub. c. 6. [Quo-
modo idem dicitur corpus et imago Christi? Quod enim est
alicujus imago, hoc corpus ejus esse non potest. In Bib.
Pat. vii. ]

Hincmarus, in vita St. Remigii. [Cum ejusdem beatze passionis
ad altare memoria replicatur, cum panis et vini creatura in sacra-
mentum carnis et sanguinis ejus ineffabili spiritus sanctificatione
transfertur. Surius, i. 290. ed. Colon.]

Fulbert. Epist. ad Adeodat. [1. Dominus defectum nostre
fragilitatis miseratus, adversus quotidianas nostre prolapsionis
offensas sacrificii placabilis expiamenta, ut quia corpus suum,
quod semel pro nobis offerebat in pretium, paulo post a nostris
visibus sublaturus fuerat in coelum, ne sublati corporis presenti
fraudaremur munimine corporis, nihilominus et sanguinis sui pignus
salutare nobis reliquit, non inanis mysterii symbolum. In Bib.
Pat. xi.]

A.D. 314.

Concil. Ancyr. can. ii. [S:axdvous duolws Oioayras, mera Se
TavTa dvamadalcayras, Thy Mev BAAnY Tinhy exew, Tenadoe Oa St ad-

212 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Tous mdons THs lepas Aevroupylas Tis Te Tod Uprov 2 morhpioy ava-
pépew } xnotooew. Harduini Concil. i. p. 271.]

Concil. Neocesar. can. xiii. [émiydpiot mpeoBirepor ev Te Kupt~
aK@ THs wéAEws mpoopepew ov SivayTat, mapdvrTos émioKdrov }) TpEo-
Butépwv mérews, obre phy uprov Siddvar év edxf, ovde morhpior.
Ib. p. 286.]

[a.D. 325.]

Concil. Nicenum, can. xxx. [ém? rijs elas tpamé(ns méAw Kav-
TAvOa wh TH mpoKeméevy Upto kal TS woTNolw Tamewas MpoceXwpEV,
GAN tidoavres Hav thy Sidvowav mlater vohowuey KeioOa em) Tis
iepas éxelvns rparé(ns Toy duvdy Tod Ocod Tov alpoyra Thy Gpaptiay
Tov Kéopou, &biTws bwd THY tepéwy Ovduevov. Kal Td Tlutov abTod
capa Kar aiua &AnOGs AauBdvovtas Huas morevew Tadra Elva TA
THs NmeTEepas dvarrdcews obuBora. did TovTo yap obre TOAY AapBa-
vouev, GAN dAlyor, iva, yvaGuev Bri od eis TAnTMOVHY, GAN eis ayI-
acudv. Ib. p. 428.]

A.D. 364. [vel circ. 372.]

Concil. Laodicenum, can. xxv. [871 od Se? Sanpéras Uprov 51d6-
vat, ov8€ moThpiov evaoyeiv. Ib. 786.]

AD. O9Fs

Concil. Carthagin. [iii.] can. xxiv. [Ut in sacramentis corporis
et sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur quam ipse Dominus
tradidit, hoc est, panis et vinum aqua mixtum. Nec amplius in
sacrificiis offeratur quam de uvis et frumentis. Ib. p. 964. Com-
pare with this the Canones Ecclesiz Africane, can. xxxvii. Ib.
p- 883.]

A.D. 541.

Concil. Aurelian. can. iv. [Ut nullus in oblatione sacri calicis
nisi quod ex fructu vinee speratur et hoc aqua mixtum offerre pre-
sumat, quia sacrilegium judicatur aliud quam quod in mandatis
sacratissimis Salvator instituit. Ib. ii. 1438.]

APPENDIX TO CHAP. VI. 213

A.D. 633,

Concilium Toletanum [iv.], can. xviii. [Nonnulli sacerdotes
post dictam orationem dominicam statim communicant, et postea
benedictionem in populo dant: quod deinceps interdicimus: sed
post orationem dominicam et conjunctionem panis et calicis bene-
dictio in populum sequatur, et tunc demum corporis et sanguinis
Domini sacramentum sumatur. Ib. iii. p. 584.]

A.D. 675.

Concil. Bracarense, can. ii. [— Nulli deinceps licitum erit
aliud in sacrificiis divinis offerre, nisi juxta antiquorum sententias
conciliorum, panem tantum et calicem vino et aqua permixtum.
Tb. p. 1033.)

A.D. 693.

Concil. Toletanum [xvi.], can. vi. [Quia et Redemptoris verba
testantur, quod panem integrum accipiens, non buccellam, quem
post benedictionem confrangens suis particulatim discipulis de-
derit ; et Paulus apostolus similiter nihilo minus narrat, quod
panem acceperit et gratias agens confregerit ; necnon et illud, quod
Christus de quinque panibus confractis turbam refecerit, quid aliud
instituit nos, nisi ut panem integrum sumentes, super altaris ejus
mensam benedicendum ponamus? Jb. p. 1796.]

A.D. 691. [706.]

Concil. Constantinopol. quinisextum sive in Trullo, can. xxxii.
[et tis ody exloxoros 7) mpeaBirepos wh KaTd Thy mapadobeicay Srd
tay amootéAwy tdkw more?, Kad Bdwp pryvds oftw Thy &xpavrov
mpocdyet Ovolay, Kabapelodw, ds &reAGs 7 pvoThpiov ekaryyéAAwv
Kat xouvi(ov Ta mapadedoueva. Ib. p. 1674.]

§ 7. p. 146.

Irenzeus, v. 10. [Homo per fidem insertus et assumens Spiritum
Dei—aliud accipit vocabulum, significans illam que in melius est

914 HISTORY OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Cail taal ele ee

- transmutationem, jam non caro et sanguis sed homo spiritalis
existens. |

Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. iv. [§ 23. 4 didaxy werapvOuicer
Tov &vOpwrov.—kal Sihveynev oddity h pice mrAacOHva Todvde 7

xpdvp Kad wabhoer weraruTwOjvau. |

Origen, Sermo ii. in Diversos. [Sanctus itaque theologus in
Deum transmutatus veritatis particeps, &c.]

Cyril. Hierul. Catech. 18. [§ 9. 7d yap c&ua rodro éyelperat,

évdvoduevoy Thy apbapclay weTamo.etTau. |

Basilius, Exhortatio ad Baptismum. [@ Tod @aduaros dvaxaviCn

Bh xwvevduevos, dvamAdtTn mh cvvTpiBdpevos. |

Chrysostomus, Homil. v. de Poenitentia. [The words to which
Dr. Cosin refers do not occur in this Homily. See, however,
Hom. 47 in Mat. et Hom. 2 in John. for instances to the point. ]

Gregorius Nazianzenus, Orat. xl. [7 did rijs dvaryevhoews
yiwouevn metamoinois THs (wis tev ovn by etn meramoinots. Ib.

Xpioroy peramemolnua TH Bawricpart. |

Gregorius Nyssen. in Christi Resur. Hom. i. [yéyovey &AAn
yévynots, Blos Erepos, UAAO wijs Eidos, adtis Tis pioews Hudy
metacroxelwois. Opera, iii. 384. Paris, 1638.]

Contra Eunom. Orat. ii. [uéAAwy fuads pmetamoety ex TOU
poaprod mpds Td kpOaproy, Sid Thy kvwlev yevnoews, THs d: Baros
Kal mvevuatos. Opera, ii. 453.] .

Epistola ad Letoium. [ée maaryyevecias wetacrorxetoumevous
31a THs TOU AovTpod xdpiros. Opera, ii.114.] In Epist. ad Eusta-
thiam, &c. [Thy piow hua mpds Thy Oclay Sbvauw meTaoTOLXELous.
Opera, iii. 658.] "

Cyril. Alexand. Hom. Pasch. vi. [karepO@apuévny Tod avOpwxov

APPENDIX TO CHAP. VII. 215
piow eis kavdrnra pmetapvOulCwy (wis. Opera, v. 2. p.79.] vii.
[kal rdvra merapvOuhoas Ta ev huiv eis duelvova tat. Ib. p.91.]
xiv. [werapvdut(er eis ayacudy, Sieady tH wiore Tov mpocepxs-
pevov. Ib. p. 197.]

Chrysostomus, Hom. xxiii. in Act. Apost. [weydAn tod mved-
patos ) Sivas, 6Tt werémAacer, STi wereppvomce. |

Hom. xxxiii. in 1 Cor. [c. xii. weydAn yap abrn diSdoKados Kal
ixavh kai wAdvns draryaryeiv Kad rpdérov perappv0uloa.

Theodoret. Dialog. ii. [To what passage Dr. Cosin refers, I
have not been able to discover. |

Theophylact. in vi. Johan. [Somep ody gnoly, eyo (@ dia Tov
marépa, TovTérriv, ws yevnbels ex Tov matpds bs éort (wy, obTw Kal
b tpdywv we Choerar 8¢ eve dvaxipydpevos, Somep Kal peracroxe-

ovmevos eis ue Tov Cworyoveiv irxtovra. p.654. ed. 1635. ]

(Ecumenius in | Pet. i. [dia Tis éx vexgav avacrdcews "Inood
Xpiorod avaryevhoas Huas Hrou ueratohoas. |

[ For an account of the origin and cause of this Conference,

|
|

the reader is referred to the Life of Bishop Cosin pre-
fixed to this volume. The MS. from which the Con-

9
ference is printed will be found in Dr. Cosin’s own

handwriting, preserved among the Tanner MSS. #& the |

Bodleian Library. | ;

|
|

eee eee eee eee ee ee

ACCOUNT OF TWO CONFERENCES

HELD AT

YORK-HOUSE, IN 1625.

The Second Conference with Mr. Montague
himself, Feb. 17, 1625.*

Arter two former meetings at York-house, in
the presence of the Duke of Buckingham, Pem-
broke lord-president of the council, Dorset, Bridg-
water, Carlisle, Mulgrave, and Secretary Coke,
the Lord Say and the Earl of Warwick, oppo-
sition was made by my Lord of Lichfield in nine
points against Mr. Montague’s books, and by
Dr. Preston in three; all defended and freely
answered by Mr. Montague himself, my Lord
of Rochester, Dr. Whyte, and myself (Mr. Cosin),
as a poor assistant commanded thither by the
duke, by reason I had been so much interested in
the business from the beginning. The occasion
of this conference was the Earl of Warwick’s and
the Lord Say’s importunate suit unto the duke
and to his majesty, that their two champions

* “ This is the sum; but the conference itself is want-
ing.”—Note in Abp. Sancroft’s hand. The first conference
commenced Feb. 11 (see p. 220); and this should have been
placed after: but I have followed the order of the MS.

L

218 THE SECOND CONFERENCE.

might be but admitted to shew their valour —

against the heresies, blasphemies, treasons, apos-
tacies, that were pretended to be in the books.

The gross heresies propounded were these :—

1. General councils lawful, &c. cannot err in
fundamentals.

2. We go to heaven and hell according to our
deservings.

3. Justification taken largely sor peehen tet
good works.

4. A woman is not held by us to be supreme
governor in cause ecclesiastical, but in reference
to persons that may be forced to do their duties
in them.

®. As Lucifer fell from heaven, so man may
fall from grace—a graceless blasphemy.

6. God is not substantially mixed with all
things, as the Stoics held.

7. The Church of Rome and ours stand firm
upon one and the main foundation.

8. We allow more sacraments than two.

9. The pope is not that great antichrist.

Dr. PREsToN.

1, Traditions mentioned in S. Basil (27th

disputation) we allow.

2. Arminius was not the cause of all the stindl ;

and broils in the Low Countries.
3. Election and reprobation are not irrespec-
tive of &e.

All which the opposers urged against with FA

WITH MR. MONTAGUE HIMSELF 219

vehemency; and Mr. M. answered with per-
spicuous brevity, and delight to all that were
present, unless my Lord Say. Not a lord be-
sides him and Warwick but expressed themselves
ashamed of such poor objections, and highly satis-
fied with such a plain, ingenious, and learned
expression as Mr. M. made of himself. The
conference held about six hours, till past eight at
night. The news was presently related to the
king, who swears his perpetual patronage of our
cause. If the faction had conquered, they had
shewed no mercy; now they are subdued, they
shew no patience, &c.

The sum and substance of the two Conferences
lately had at York-house concerning Mr. Mon-
tague’s books ; which it pleased the Duke of Buck-
ingham to appoint, and with divers other honour-
able persons to hear, at the special and earnest
request of the Earl of Warwick and the Lord Say.

The first day’s meeting was without any con-
ference. Feb. 9th, 1625.

The day first appointed by the Lord Duke of
Buckingham was Thursday the 9th of Feb., on
which the Dean of Carlisle and Mr. Montague
were suddenly sent for, came and attended at
York-house, and, after two or three hours ex-
pectation, it pleased the duke’s grace to signify

)
:
:

220 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

unto them, that the lords who desired the confer- —
ence, and the opposers (who were hereafter to be —
brought forth, but as yet concealed men from —
himself) being either not ready with their objec- —
tions, or not at leisure for other occasions, hath
failed both himself and them for that day. So
wishing them to attend no more until further and
more certain notice was given unto them, they b
went their way. 1

The First Conference. Feb. 11.

All the day following Mr. Montague still at-
tended in London, expecting when he shall be
called, but as yet no message came ; and therefore
he resolved to go and despatch some serious busi-
ness the next day at Windsor, and to return upon
the Monday morning; after which, as he thought,
would be the soonest time that was now likely to
be assigned for any conference. Yet upon the
next day, which was Saturday the llth of Feb.
(when Mr. M. was but newly gone out of the
town), were both he and the dean sent for again,
and wished to be ready at York-house by two of
the clock in the afternoon. The Dean of Carlisle* —
(finding Mr. M. gone) was desirous, as he came —
along by Durham-house, to have Mr. Cosin with
him to the conference: and together they went
at the time assigned. :
* Dr. Fr. White, author of the Reply to Fisher the ig |
Jesuit. ‘ .

UPON MR. MONTAGUE’S BOOKS. 221

Immediately upon their coming to York-~-
house was my Lord Bishop of Rochester* sent
for by the duke, and requested to the conference.

When his lordship was come, we all entered
into the chamber, where we found the Lord Duke
of Buckingham, the Earl of Pembroke, and the
Earl of Carlisle, together with the Earl of War-
— wick, the Lord Say, Mr. Secretary Coke, and the
Bishop of Lichfield,t who was now perceived to
be of those that should accuse and appear against
Mr. M.

After a few salutations passed, the doors being
commanded to be shut, and the lords desired to
order and place themselves at the table, it pleased
the Bishop of Lichfield to prevent all others, —
to begin his speech and say,

*€ That he should in all humble wise crave of
his grace and the rest of the honourable assembly
to conceive rightly of his appearing that day
against Mr. M., which was no other than what
he was forced unto for the discharge of his con-
science, of a true and sincere love which he and
many others bore to the profession of the Gospel
and the truth of God; protesting withal that he
came not out of any spleen or malice against Mr.
Montague’s person, as intending to destroy him,

* Bp. Buckeridge, the friend of Andrews and Laud.
+ Bp. Morton, author of several learned works against
the Romanists.

999 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

but with a true and upright meaning to lay forth
his errors, and intending to reform him; for that
in books of his lately published, the one called
the Gag, the other the Appeal, there were such
gross errors, such heresies and blasphemies con-
tained, as were not to be endured in a Christian
commonwealth. |

“* And by their honourable patience he should
make it appear how, by the publishing of these
books,—1. Authority had been abused. 2. That
the articles and religion of the Church of Eng-
land. 3. That no less than treason had been ut-
tered, and both the oath of allegiance and supre-
macy condemned. 4. That apparent heresy had
been maintained. 5. That the learned and worthy
writings of our late sovereign lord King James
had been rejected and vilified. 6. That the whole
Gospel of Jesus Christ had been by some passages
overthrown. And, 7. and lastly, that a great gap
had been opened for popery to be brought in or
get increase among us; besides many scandalous
and profane passages, which should likewise be
observed and offered unto consideration.”

When his lordship had said and made an end
of this his general accusation, the Duke of Buck-
ingham desired him to respite a little, having been
all this while prevented and hindered by him from
telling the occasion of this meeting together.

Which his grace then declared to have risen

UPON MR. MONTAGUE’S BOOKS. 223

from some private speeches that had lately passed
between my Lord of Warwick and him concern-
ing sundry matters that were said to be erroneous
and dangerous in Mr. M.’s books; wherein, be-
cause he was not so well versed himself as to
judge or censure matters of so high a nature, he
was willing to yield to their request who had so
earnestly desired a conference for manifesting of
such dangerous errors as were pretended; or
otherwise for the quieting of all differences, if
no such error could be proved. Adding thereunto,
that the judgment of divers grave and learned
prelates of this Church had yet confirmed both
his majesty and himself in the good opinion which
his late sovereign lord and master always con-
ceived of Mr. M.’s worth and learning, together
with his constant resolution to maintain the doc-
trine publicly established in the Church of Eng-
land, and to continue sound in his religion, whereof
some had begun to make a doubt.*

Moreover, he said that in this opinion of him
he should still continue, whilst he had no just
cause shewed him to remove from it; and if any
just cause were shewn, it must be in the sub-
stance of his books; for as for the sharpness of
style or language wherein they were written, it

* The duke refers to a letter, since published in the

Cabala, signed by several of the bishops, in favour of Mr.
Montague’s books.

294: THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

was partly by direction given him, and partly by
peevishness of his adversaries, which might well
draw him thereunto: and for concluding that the
substantial parts of his writings were only to be
regarded in this conference, and that if they were
not found erroneous, Mr. M.’s language, whatso-
ever it were, ought to be no prejudice unto him,
[and so] he wished his Lordship of Coventry and
Lichfield to proceed.

Which he did, in urging for his first point,
that authority had been abused. For in pub-
lishing of the Appeal divers passages were now
printed which were never allowed or approved of
before. And for instance he alleged the chapter
of antichrist, where the word rather was added,
and the sentence made, “ the Turk is rather that
antichrist than the pope.”

Whereupon the Dean of Carlisle (unto whom
the approbation of the book was committed by
his majesty) made answer, that he could not re-
member whether the printed copy and that which
he licensed did in every tittle, word, and title
agree or no; but for any substantial and material
addition or alteration he could observe none to be
made through the whole book ; and therefore was
still ready to maintain every thing now printed
and published to be answerable unto that appro-
bation whereunto he subscribed his name, unless
it could be proved that he was mistaken therein,

4
x
a
3
a

a —

OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 925

The bishop, not seeming to be satisfied with
this answer, still made instance in the word
rather, and urged it so, as if the dean himself
had in some company affirmed it to have been
added. ,

The dean answering again as before, and that
it was a matter of no moment whether any such
word was added or no, the Bishop of Rochester
began to put his Lordship of Lichfield in mind
that the adding or not adding of this word, unless
it were first proved by him to concern the doc-
trine of the Church of England, made little to his
purpose; and that therefore his lordship should
do well to shew first, where the Church of Eng-
land had by public authority, either one way or
other, determined that controversy.

“< If it concerns not the public established
doctrine of the Church,” quoth the duke, “ why
should we trouble ourselves withal ?”’

Whereupon the Bishop of Lichfield (though
with some unwillingness and reluctation) gave
over this first objection against the word, signify-
ing withal, that he meant to speak of the matter
of antichrist soon after. And so proceeded to his
second objection, which was concerning general
councils. Whereupon he urged that Mr. M., in
his Appeal, p. 122, &c. had contradicted the
public doctrine of the Church of England, de-
livered in the 21st article, the affirming that

L2

2926 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

** general councils neither have erred nor can
err;” and the article allowing the contrary, that
‘* general councils, forasmuch as they be an as- —
sembly of men, whereof all are not governed by. —
the Spirit and word of God, may err, and some-
times have erred, even in things appertaining to
God.” |

After the bishop had a while advanced this
objection, the Dean of Carlisle answered, that
when Mr. M. was rightly understood, the seem-
ing contradiction between his words and the words
of the article would be soon taken away. For,
first, whereas the article speaketh of general
councils indefinitely and at large, that is, of such
as have been reputed lawful and general accord-
ing to the opinion of the multitude, Mr. M. pro-
poseth his assertion of none such, but of some
certain general councils only, which are such as
be not lawfully called alone, and which consist
of the most worthy and learned pastors or
bishops of the Christian world, but such also
as, being so called, do with a pious affection
orderly proceed to the making of their canons
and framing their conclusions, according to the
rule of God’s word, submitting themselves to
the guidance of his Spirit, which he hath pro-
mised unto such as are gathered together in his
name.

And here, as the dean was about to proceed,

OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 22°7

“Take what council you will,’’ quoth my Lord of
Lichfield, “and qualified with any conditions
whatsoever, I will prove by this 21st article that
all the councils of the world may err. For this
is my syllogism :

All assemblies of men may err ;

But all general councils whatsoever are assem-

blies of men; therefore

All general councils whatsoever may err.”’

It was answered, that all assemblies of men
in sensu diviso, and considered merely as men,
may err; but all assemblies of men in sensu
composito, considered as men rightly qualified,
and duly proceeding through the power of God’s
Spirit (wherewith they have promise to be assisted
and led unto all truth), shall not so err.

As the Bishop of Lichfield began to reply,
* My lord,’ quoth the Bishop of Rochester,
*< you shall not need; for as you propound your
argument, you make an adversary to yourself,
where you find none. The point of difference is
not so much, whether general councils may err or
no at all (for in many things they have erred,
saith the article, and Mr. M. denies it not); but
whether general councils qualified, as before was
told you, have erred, shall or may err in funda-
mentals or no, which the article doth not, and
Mr. M. will not, affirm.”

‘JT will prove it,” said the Bishop of Lich-

998 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
*

field, “ that it saith they may err in funda-
mentals :

Things necessary to salvation are matters fun-

damental ;

But the article saith, they may err and have

erred in things necessary to salvation ;

Therefore the article saith, they may err in

fundamentals.”

It was answered, that the article said no
more but that they might err, and sometimes
have erred even in things appertaining unto God,
and many things appertaining unto God are nei-
ther fundamental nor necessary to salvation.

‘¢ There can no sense be made of the article,”
quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “ but only that
which I have made already; things appertaining
unto God, and things necessary to salvation, have
reference here one to another, and are made the
same things.”

My Lord of Rochester replied, “ that the
sense was this: first, that general councils at all
times, and in all things appertaining unto God,
are not infallible; for in some of these they may

q
bean

err, and sometimes have erred ;—and secondly,

that if they proceed in a further degree of making
things which pertain unto God and religion to be
also necessary to salvation, their authority shall
not be received without the Scripture. So that
here was a plain difference put between things

OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 229

necessary to salvation and things generally apper-
taining unto God. |

Hereupon my lord chamberlain called for
the book of Articles, and comparing the former
words with the latter, professed that my Lord of
Rochester had given a most plain and true mean-
ing of them both. Dr. White added, “ that how-
soever the article saith, they may and have erred
in things appertaining unto God, yet it doth not
affirm that they have or shall err in things neces-
sary to salvation, so long as they take the Scrip-
ture for their guide, and use the means which
God hath appointed, and which the first four
general councils used to guide them.”’

“ Do not all things necessary to salvation per-
tain to God?” quoth the Bishop of Lichfield.

“‘ Yea,”’ quoth my Lord of Rochester ; “ but
all things appertaining unto God are not neces-
sary to salvation. Neither doth the article speak
of erring in all things that pertain to God, but in
some only; for the matter being contingent, and
the proposition indefinite, the rule is, I[ndefinita
propositio in materia contingenti semper est parti-
cularis ; and therefore in some things they have
erred and may err, but not in all.”

The Bishop of Lichfield replied, “It is a true
rule, my lord, in other things, but not in arti-
cles ;” and being yet not satisfied, endeavoured
so long with his logic in antecedents to prove that

230 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

either the article must bear that sense which him- —
self had made of it, or else have no sense in it at —
all, as that the lords begun to be somewhat weary
of his discourse; and thereupon desired him to
return where he was before, and to shew when
and in what fundamental point any general coun-
cil hath erred, which was qualified as Mr. M.
requireth.

The bishop made instance in the second
council of Ephesus, which was both general and
lawfully called by the Emperor Theodosius ; yet
it erred in approving of Eutyches’ impiety against
Christ.

It was answered by my Lord of Rochester,
that this was no lawful council, but a factious and
heretical conventicle, which wanted all the condi-
tions that Mr. M. requireth to the constitution of
a true general council.

It was also added by Mr. Cosin, that all men
know that synod at Ephesus was condemned and
vilified by the great general council of Chalce-
don; and the reason was given by Mr. Dean of
Carlisle, not only because of the decrees in faith
there concluded, but also in respect of the out-
ward form and manner of proceeding therein. —

Then was a second instance made by the
Bishop of Lichfield in many later general coun-
cils, and especially that of Trent.

It was answered again, that all these were —

OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 931

neither truly general, nor yet otherwise qualified
according to the conditions required in a council
by Mr. M., who hath exempted none from error
but such (for still his discourse runs upon the

word such, said my lord duke and the Earl of
Carlisle) as have the like form and qualifications
_ to the first four general councils. ‘“ Yet,’’ quoth
my Lord of Rochester, “as ill as things were
carried in the very council of Trent, which was

far from being general, it is hard to demonstrate
_ where this council hath erred in any direct funda-

mental points of faith ; for that in the very begin-

ning of the council, sess. fertia, it had made a

special decree that all and the only fundamental

points of faith, which every man must necessarily
_ believe for his salvation, were contained, totidem
_ verbis, in the Constantinopolitan creed then used

in the Church, and there repeated and established

by that council. Whereupon whatsoever they
determined afterwards, cannot, by their own de-

cree, be made fundamental or necessary to sal-
vation.”
And with this discourse the lords professed

themselves much satisfied, and were confirmed in
the truth, or so great probability, at least, of the

truth of Mr. M.’s assertion, as that it deserved

not to be quarrelled.

‘<I perceive,” quoth my lord chamberlain,

“that Mr. M. restraineth his assertion to the

932 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

first four general councils. Can my Lord of Lich-_
field shew us in what point they have erred that —
is fundamental ?”’

“* The first four?” quoth my Lord of Lichfield,
“I cannot tell; Mr. M. saith in one place he ac-
knowledgeth none truly general but them, and in
other places he seems to aim at more.’

““ Nay, if it be come to seeming,” quoth my
lord duke, “ we shall look long enough before we
see the apparent errors that you spake of, and
promised to shew us.”’

The bishop replied, “ that Mr. M. prevari-
cated, said and unsaid ; but he knew his meaning |
well enough.”

“< Yea, there it is,” yuoth my Lord Say, “he
prevaricates, that the papists may take advantage
against us out of his words.”

My Lord of Rochester told them that preva-
ricating was a hard and unseemly word to be put
upon a man of Mr. M.’s ingenuity, who spake
nothing but what he meant very truly. Yet still
the Bishop of Lichfield urged that his meaning
in this point could not be good.

“Know you his meaning better than him-
self?”? quoth the duke. Whereupon it was de-
sired by Mr. Cosin, that inasmuch as every man
was the best explainer of his own meaning, Mr.
M.’s words might be read, wherewith he had
fully interpreted himself concerning this matter.

OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 233

The duke and the lord chamberlain demand-

ing if any such plain and full place could be

shewn, Mr. Cosin brought the book unto them,
and pointing out the place, desired my lord
chamberlain to peruse it, and to ask the Bishop
of Lichfield what he could desire to have a man
write or say more.

When his lordship had privately read over the
place or passage with the duke, he spread the
book suddenly upon the tabie, and requested the
lords to hear the place read; “a place,’ quoth
he, ‘* that will end all this controversy ; for it is

' the conclusion and sum of all Mr. M.’s discourse

about general councils. And thus he writes,
pp- 125, 126: speaking of these words in the arti-
cle, ‘ Things necessary to salvation must be taken
out of Scripture alone :-—‘ Councils have no such
over-awing power and authority to tie men to

_ believe upon pain of damnation, without express

warrant of God’s word, as is rightly resolved in
the article. They are but interpreters of the law,
they are not absolute to make such alaw. Inter-
pretation is required but in‘ things of doubtful
issue ; our fundamentals are no such. Councils
are supposed not to exceed their commission,
which warranteth them to debate and determine
questions and things Uitigiosi status. If they do
not hoc agere sincerely; if they shall presume to
make laws without warrant (“ Mark you that,”

234 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

quoth the duke], and new articles of faith (who |
have no further authority than to interpret them) }
laws without God’s word, that shall bind the con-
science, and require obedience upon life and death
[“ What then?” quoth my lord chamberlain] ;
our Church will not justify their proceedings, nor
doar”

“And by my faith,” says my lord chamber-
lain, as soon as ever he had read the place, “ if
ye accuse Mr. M. for such opinions as these,
you must accuse me and all my lords here be-
sides, for I think we be all of his mind.”

“J know not what the Bishop of Lichfield
would have,” quoth the duke, “ if this will not
satisfy him.” “It giveth me,” saith Mr. Secre-
tary Coke, “ full satisfaction.”

My Lord Say made answer, and the Bishop
of Lichfield seconded him, that they took no ex-
ceptions against this place, but against a former
passage, where Mr. M. saith, that a general
council shall never err in fundamentals. ‘ Nay,”
quoth Mr. Cosin, ‘may it please your lordships,
Mr. M. speaketh of such a general council where-
of he said before; and he doth not peremptorily
say, it shall never err, but he delivers it as a pro-
bable opinion only, and no more. The last words
of his chapter are, De tali concilio, et saniori
parte, et conclusionibus in fide, probabile est.”
“¢ You may take in the former words,” quoth the

!
|
|
|

OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 935

duke, “ ‘ to conclude the information is a mere
-eavil.’”’

The Lord Say and Seal still insisted upon it
that Mr. M. in this passage had contradicted the
former, which was it that they took exceptions
against; and therefore he bade Mr. Cosin leave
pointing to places, and read no more.

« What,” quoth my lord duke, “ will you not
give a man leave to explain himself, and have his
mind told? Doth not the place which comes
after explain that which went before? These are
the most unreasonable men that ever were talked

withal.”’

Whereupon the Bishop of Lichfield professed,
that if Mr. M. intended no more than what these
latter passages of his chapter imported, he was

‘content to be quiet, and would quarrel him no
more further in the point.

** Yea,”’ quoth the duke, “ and good reason ;
otherwise upon what ground shall we believe my
Lord of Lichfield, or any other preacher who will
tell us they do not err, if we cannot be persuaded
that whole general councils, true and lawful,
taking for their rule the word of God, and pro-
ceeding in the same steps that the first four did
(whereof my Lord spake before), shall not in all
probability err, or deceive us in fundamentals and
things necessary to salvation? We may safely
conclude, then, that Mr. M. is quit of this objec-
tion.”

236 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

OF JUSTIFICATION AND GOOD WORKS.

Pala

“The next point of it, may it please your —

grace,” quoth the Bishop of Lichfield, “ is con-
cerning justification and good works, wherein Mr.
M. hath opposed the doctrine of the Church of
Christ in her 11th article, where we read of ‘ the

justification of man, that we are accounted right-—

eous before God only for the merit of our Lord

and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for.

our own works or deservings.’ But in Mr. M.
we are taught otherwise, as in his answer to
the Gagyer, p. 143: ‘ Justification consisteth in
forgiveness of sins primarily, and grace infused
secondarily.’ Jtem, p. 144: ‘ In the point of jus-
tification we yield to hope and holiness, and the
fruits of the Spirit in good works.’ All these,”

quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “ besides God and _

faith.”

The Dean of Carlisle perceiving this objection
not to be against the book, which he had ap-
proved, told the bishop that he came thither to

defend the Appeal; and asked him, if he had no-

more to say against that book? ‘‘ Yes,” says the
bishop, “I have enough to object against the
Appeal hereafter.”

The lords asked, who licensed the formed
book? Mr. Cosin made answer, that King James
had not only given his direction for the writing,
but his own authority and command also for the
publishing of it.

OF JUSTIFICATION. 237

: « But,” saith my Lord of Lichfield, “ Mr.
Dean, what answer you for him to my objec-
tion ?”’

_ Nothing,” quoth the dean; “ for Mr. Cosin
hath the place here ready, where Mr. M. answers
you himself at large, and it is in that very period
which your lordship hath cited. His words are
these :—‘ In the third acceptance of the word
justification, we acknowledge instrumentally faith
alone, and causally God alone. In a second and
third sense, besides God and faith, we yield to
hope, and holiness, and sanctification, and the
fruits of the Spirit in good works. But these are
rather fruits, and consequences, and effects, and
appendants of justification, than justification itself
(as it signifieth remission of sins and imputation
of Christ’s merits), which is a solitary act.’”

The bishop replied, that this was but shuffling ;
and that all Mr. M.’s discourse about justification
was for the justifying of popish doctrine, and
bringing in of good works to be a part of justifi-
cation, against our English article ; for why else
should Mr. M. tell us of an access to justification ?

‘Your lordship shall hear Mr. M. declare
himself,’ quoth the dean, “ in that book which I
have subscribed. It was the informer’s objection,
and he answered them after this manner. App. —
p- 195, 197: ‘1 do also avow an access of justifi-
cation made unto it by works of a holy and lively

238 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

faith; not as essential thereunto, or ingredient —
intrinsically (for justification is properly the work —
of God), but only declaratory, as I have plainly ©
expressed myself in direct words, and as the
doctrine of the Church of England is in the

12th article.’ ”’ |

“If this be not good divinity,” quoth my lord
the Earl of Carlisle, “ why do you preach good
life??? “ And it is a marvellous thing to me,”
quoth my lord chamberlain, “ to hear Mr. M.
accused for popery, in saying, that a man made
just by the grace of God, through faith, is also
declared to be just by his holy life and conver-
sation.”

The Bishop of Lichfield said, that he found
no fault with this explication ; “ but belike, then,”’
quoth he, “ Mr. M. in his latter book hath re-
tracted his opinion which he wrote in the former ;
and let that be confessed, and I have done.” __

“¢ By your lordship’s leave,” quoth Mr. Cosin,
‘* you cannot say that Mr. M. retracts that which
he never wrote. And it may be his own answer
(for I will not take upon me to oppose your lord-
ship), whose words are, p. 197, containing the
very point: ‘ It is not in itself, nor is delivered by
me, nor is conceived of by me, to be any part of
proper justification.’”’

«< And what is not delivered first, nor con-
ceived by him,” says the duke, “ he could never

OF MERIT AND DESERT. 239

recant.” Whereupon the Bishop of Lichfield,
perceiving all the company to be satisfied, made

haste to a fourth objection.

CONCERNING MERIT AND DESERT.

** Herein,” quoth the bishop, “ Mr. M. hath

contradicted the 11th article again. ‘ We are not
justified for our own merits and deservings,’ saith
the article. But Mr. M. teacheth us that we get
_ heaven itself through our own deservings.”” “ It

cannot be,” quoth the Dean of Carlisle, “ that

_ Mr. M. should write or let fall any such sen-
tence.”

“ For merit,” said Mr. Cosin, “ may it please
your lordships to give me leave, and suffer me

to read Mr. M.’s own words, whereby he doth
utterly disclaim it. App. p. 206, his words are:

‘I never said it, never thought it; do detest it

from my heart.’” ‘* What doth he detest ?”

quoth the bishop. ‘“ Marry,”’ quoth Mr. Cosin,
** your lordships shall hear: ¢ that by our good
works we may deserve grace, goodness, heaven,
happiness at God’s hands, I detest it from my
heart.”

That place was so clear and heavy, that in all
haste my lord duke called to Mr. Cosin for the
book, to read the saying over again. ‘* And is it

possible,” quoth he, “ that we should be ready
_ with such a place to fit him? This was happily

240 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

bin milan tai ail

found out indeed. What say you, my Lord of
Lichfield? are you answered now?’ Hereupon
the lords seemed to be somewhat displeased with —
the bishop’s accusations. ‘And for God’s sake,”

quoth my lord chamberlain, “ what manner of
objections are these? or why sit we here to hear
an ingenious man accused of these errors, from

which he professeth himself to abhor?’ And, —

turning himself to the bishop, “ My lord,” quoth
he, “ you do much wrong both to us and him
at 1b.

The Bishop of Lichfield replied, that by their
lordships’ patience he would prove what he had
objected out of Mr. M.’s own words, which in the
Appeal, p. 233, were these :—‘ ‘The good go
to the enjoying of happiness without end; the
wicked to the enduring of torments everlasting.

Thus is their state diversified to their deservings.’ |

And if deserving of heaven and happiness be not
here acknowledged,” quoth the bishop, ‘‘ I under-
stand no English.”” About this time Dr. Preston
knocked at the chamber-door, and being let in,
came and stood at my Lord of Lichfield’s elbow.
** About what matter speaks he now?” quoth
the duke, not well attending, for other talk, what
the bishop had said last. ‘ About no matter at
all,’ quoth Mr. Cosin, then standing next; “ it is
but about a word only, as your grace shall hear.”
My lord chamberlain said, that had he read

a= = F—— -

OF MERIT AND DESERT. 941

over the piece ten times, he should never have

taken exception against it.

The Bishop of Rochester and the Dean of
Carlisle replied, that “ the diversifying of every
man’s state to their deserving,” in the place cited

_ was no more, in Mr. M.’s sense, than the “ reward-

ing of every man according to his work,” which
be the very words of the Scripture; and that per
opera and per merita, in good sense, was one
thing, propter opera or propter merita was ano-
ther; as the Schools did rightly distinguish.

** In Mr. M.’s sense, and in a good sense,”’
quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “so you may excuse
any popery whatsoever: here is a plain affection
of popish merit; if his meaning were otherwise,
why was it not expressed ?”

“It is,” quoth Mr. Cosin; “ for the whole.
13th chapter of this Appendix is written to that
purpose: ‘ The merit and deserving that I mean,’
quoth Mr. M. ‘is no more but this; verily there
is a reward for the righteous; God rewardeth the
proud after their own deserving. And so king
David is become a papist as well as I.’ But for
any popish sense or meaning of the word, he dis-
claims it in express terms, p. 203, a whole page
together. ‘ The Jesuits use the word mereri con-
trary to the meaning of the ancient fathers, and
to the natural origination and sense thereof; which

M

9492 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

was but to procure, to incur, to purchase, and ©

obtain, as was shewn out of Tacitus and others.

My Lord of Rochester added, that whereas we

read in St. Paul (1 Tim. i. 13), “ Sed miseri-
cordiam consecutus sum, quia ignorans feci;” St.

29>

Cyprian reads it, “ guia misericordiam merui ;”? and —

merui there was taken in sense good enough, &c.
‘¢ Howsoever you may qualify it,” saith the
Lord Say and Seale, “ the word deserving, in
these times, seeing it hath been so abused by the
Papists, is very offensive to a good Protestant.”
‘“¢ T will answer you for that,” quoth my lord
duke, and my lord chamberlain repeated it; “ let
the word deserving here be applied to that clause
of the sentence that immediately goeth before it,
that is, ‘The wicked go to enduring of torments
everlasting,’ as it may be well so applied, and
there will be no offence in it at all.”’ ?
“My lord bishop,”’ quoth my lord chamber-
lain, “ you stretch and wrest a well-meaning
man’s words too far. This is but a very poor
objection. I beseech you let us be troubled no
longer with it.”
And hereupon the Bishop of Lichfield turned
over his papers for a fifth accusation.

OF THE OATH OF SUPREMACY. 243

CONCERNING THE OATH OF SUPREMACY.

Which oath he accused Mr. M. to have de-

_ cried in plain terms.

“‘ That were somewhat strange,” quoth the

dean. “As strange as it is,” quoth the bishop,

* [ will prove it. For in his answer to the Gag,
p-68, when the Papist objected to us as an error,
and yet said truly, ‘ That we held a woman may
be supreme governess of the Church in all causes,
as well ecclesiastical as temporal, as Queen Eliza-
beth was; for this saying Mr. M. giveth him the
lie, and affirms, ‘ that no Protestant ever thought
so.” And the bishop added, that he thought this
saying of Mr. M. was not far from treason.

The lords being at the first somewhat troubled
to hear this great accusation and objection against
him, desired to see the place which was cited.
And forthwith Mr. Cosin delivering the book to
the duke, and shewing withal that Mr. M. had

not blamed the Gagger for the words recited,

but for leaving out other words which should have
gone along with them.

‘What words are they?” quoth the duke.
Mr. Cosin said, “ ‘over all persons,’ my lord,”’ and
directed him to the place. Whereupon the duke,
turning to the Bishop of Lichfield, ‘‘ My lord,”’
said he, “‘ I pray you hear me read you a passage
here, out of Dr. M.’s own words, to answer your

24:4: THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

accusation withal: ‘Can your small understanding
put no difference betwixt over all and in all, be- —
twixt persons and causes? Over all persons, in —
all causes, is one thing; over each, or over causes —
without persons, looketh your way. But causes ©
with persons over the parties in their proceedings
is no such exorbitancy.” And I cannot but won-
der,” quoth the duke, “ that you will make such
large accusations and prove nothing.” |
The Bishop of Lichfield replied that he stood
to Mr. M.’s first words. ‘ What!” quoth my
lord chamberlain and the Earl of Carlisle; “ you
must give a man leave to finish his answer before
you can justly pass any censure upon him. Mr.
M., in the words immediately following, saith as
much as you or any reasonable man can require
him to say: p. 69 his words are these (and my
lord chamberlain read them), ‘ We say princes
have supreme power in earth, under God, over all
persons, in all causes whatsoever, within these
dominions, even in causes merely ecclesiastical, to
compel them to do their duties by the civil sword.
Not over all causes to do as they will, to com-
mand or change belief or faith.’ ”’ ‘ So that this
accusation,” quoth my lord the duke, “ might
have been well spared ; for we are all of Mr. M.’s
mind; and if you be not so likewise, my Lord of —
Lichfield, you are much to blame.” |
“ Nay,’’ quoth the sale tis “< T am very glad

ON ~~

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 945

that things are thus answered and solved: I seek
not to destroy the man, who hath many excellent

parts in him. But, if it please your grace, I

will proceed to another objection.’”’ — “ Let it be
to some purpose, then,” quoth the duke; “ for

hitherto nothing hath been said that is of any
moment.” And to this saying most of the lords

agreed, and wished my Lord of Lichfield had
never appeared in the business.

CONCERNING THE CHURCH OF ROME.

The next objection was, Mr. M. had opposed
the doctrine of the Church of England in the
19th article, the words whereof are, “ That the
Church of Rome hath erred not only in their
living and manner of ceremonies, but also in
matters of faith.” “* Now Mr. M. would make
men .believe the contrary, Gag, p.50; and_ his
words are written in Latin,” quoth the bishop,
“that his popery, no doubt, might not be ap-
parent : ‘Et quamvis presens hec ecclesia Romana,
non parum in morum et discipline integritate, adde
etiam in doctrine sinceritate, ab antiqua illa, unde
orta et derivata est, discesserit ; tamen eodem fun-
damento doctrine, et sacramentorum a Deo insti-
tutorum firma semper constitit, et communionem
cum antiqua illa et indubitata Christi ecclesia ag-
noscit et colit.’”

246 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.
7

*‘They are none of his words,” quoth the
Dean of Carlisle; “ they are Cassander’s.”
~& Yea,” quoth the bishop, “ but he saith,

‘moderate men will confess as much on both —

sides ;’ whereby it appeareth that himself is one —

of those moderators, as well as Cassander; and

al

i

this is a plain opening of gaps to let in popery.”
‘< It will be shewed,” said my Lord of Roches- —

ter, “ that many moderate and learned men of our

Church, who were far from popery, have said as —

much.”

“¢ Well,” quoth my lord chamberlain, “ I pray,
what saith the article?’’ The bishop answered,
“Tt affirmeth, ‘ that the Church of Rome hath
erred in matters of faith.’ ”’ |

“* Matters of faith?”? said Mr. Cosin; “ doth

not your lordship mistake? I beseech you read

over the words again. The words are, ‘ firma
constitit in eodem fundamento,’ which all matters —

of faith are not.”

When this observation was a while explained, |

at the duke’s request; “ I confess,’ quoth the —

bishop, “ that this is the best answer which can
be made unto it: but what say you to that which —

followeth? ¢ The Church of Rome hath continued —

in the right doctrine of the sacraments.’” “ Of
sacraments instituted by God,” said the dean.
** | pray your lordship take in these words too;

——-

OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. DAT

for the Church of Rome may persist and keep

them, howsoever they make addition of more,
which God himself ordained not.”’

The bishop asked, if it were not a destroy-

ing of the doctrine of the sacraments to add
unto the number of them, and make more than
two? |

It was answered, that in a large acceptation

the Church of England hath been aecustomed to
_ give the name of sacraments unto many more

rites and ceremonies than baptism and the supper
of the Lord only.*

“ That did it never,” quoth the bishop.
*‘Shew me any place where any other rite is
called a sacrament but those two only.”

“¢ Your lordship may have divers places shewed
you,” said Mr. Cosin; “ and here the Common
Prayer-book is ready for the purpose: in the act
first before the book, where the minister is en-
joined ‘to use the matins and even-song there
prescribed, together with the administration of
the Lord’s supper, and celebration of each other
of the sacraments.’ And then in the rubric at
the end of the communion, every parishioner
(who is supposed to be baptised already) ‘ must

* Tpse Calvinus ait (Jnst. iv. 14, § 20), impositionem
manuum, qua ecclesiz ministri in suum munus initiantur,
ut non invitus patior vocari sacramentum, ita inter ordi-
naria sacramenta numero,

248 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

communicate thrice in the year at least, and also —

Pmt ef

receive the sacraments.

My Lord of Lichfield, having never observed ‘

these places before, seemed to be a little troubled

at them ; but at last made answer, that in a large ;
sense we might make seven-score sacraments, if —

we would. “ Be it so,” quoth the dean; “ and
in a strict sense there are some pontificians that
admit but two.” :

The bishop asked how many Mr. M. would
allow of ?

It was answered, that if Mr. M. were present
there would be no disagreement betwixt his lord-
ship and him in the number of the sacraments.

‘¢ T wish he were here,” quoth my lord cham-

berlain ; “‘ we have all a great desire to hear him- ©

self speak.” And the Bishop of Lichfield said
he must be sent for, or else there would never be
an end. 7

‘“‘ May it please your lordships,” quoth Mr.
Cosin, “ to appoint any other day of meeting;
and as Mr. M. hath left order with me, I shall
soon have him here to attend you.”

“You shall send for him,’ quoth the duke,
‘cif it shall so please my lords here, against
Thursday next.”” And the lords assenting, they
began to rise all from the table; the duke smiling,

and my lord chamberlain shaking his head at the —

needless. accusations which had been made.

OF FALLING FROM GRACE. 949

_ © And surely,” saith the duke, “if these be
the greatest matters you be grieved with, I can

see no reason but Mr. M. should be defended.”’

OF FALLING FROM GRACE,

* Well,” quoth my Lord Say, “ the chiefest

matter of all is yet behind; which is, touching
- falling away from grace, and concerning the defi-

nitions of the synod of Dort against Arminianism,

wherein Dr. Preston shall speak, and manifest

Mr. M.’s errors, if your lordships will be pleased
to stay a while longer.”

“Yea,” quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “ that’s
another main point, about falling from grace,
which no orthodox divine will maintain.”

“ What’s that,” quoth the Dean of Carlisle,
“that a man, being once in the state of grace,
may either totally or finally fall away from that
state ?”

© It is,” quoth the bishop.

The lords being willing to hear the matter de-

bated, Dr. White answered, that howsoever Mr.

M. had not resolved or determined the question
either way, but had only declared his opinion in
it, whereunto he was led by divers reasons drawn
both out of the fathers and the public doctrine of
the Church of England; yet because his lordship
was so confident on the other side, he craved

leave to put a question to him.
mM 2

250 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

“If a man,” quoth the dean, “ who is justi- *
fied, and for the time present in the state of —
grace, do afterwards commit a foul, wilful, and :
enormous sin; as, for example, if he fall in love ~
with another man’s wife, and commit the act of ‘
adultery with her sundry times, persisting in that —
foul and wicked course of life for the space of ‘
two, three, four, five, ten months or more; doth —
this man remain in the state of grace and salva-
tion all that while, or is he justified before he ~
hath forsaken and abandoned his sin ?”’

The bishop answered, ‘ That man was never
justified, nor in the state of grace. Yet suppose
he were (for I perceive you are upon David’s
case), for all that sin, he is in the state of saving
grace.” And my Lord Say would needs add, that
he still held his union with Christ, though he lost
his communion with him, which was the feeling
and comfort of God’s Spirit.

“¢ Will you set up a school of sin ?”’ quoth my
Lord of Rochester: “ this is a most licentious, a
sensual, and a dangerous doctrine to be taught to
any people.”

But the dean proceeded in his arguments :— —
“No man is justified, or in the state of saving
grace, that hath not remission of his sins; but this :
man hath not remission of his sins; therefore he —
is not justified. And that he hath not remission
of his sins before he forsakes them, I hope,” —

OF FALLING FROM GRACE. 251

quoth the dean, “ your lordship will never
deny.”

The bishop answered by denying the major
_ proposition; and said that man was justified,
_ although he had not remission of his sins.

| “ Yea,” quoth the dean, “ I had thought re-
mission of sins had either been justification itself,
according to some divines, or an essential part of
it at least, according to all.”

“« You speak of the act of justification,”’ quoth
the bishop; ‘* but a man may be justified, though
he be not actually justified.”’

“« May he so?” says the dean. “ What will
your lordship then answer to the tenet of all Pro-
testants, that say there is no justification but that
which is actual; for actual it must be, or ha-
bitual; and habitual it cannot be, because all
habits are qualities inherent, which I am sure
your lordship will never grant justification to be?”

* There is,’’ quoth the bishop, “ a justifica-
tion ex parte subjecti, and a justification ex parte
Dei. With this distinction I answer.”

“That the person so sinning, and continu-
ing in sin as before?” quoth the dean. “ Be it
so,” quoth the bishop, “ that this person may be
justified and is so justified ex parte Dei, although
he be not justified ex parte subjecti.”’

“A very fair distinction,” quoth the dean,
** and a contradiction withal. For if a person be

252 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

not justified ex parte subjecti, then he is not jus-
tified ex parte sua; nor can he be justified at all,
inasmuch as justification is not applied unto him,

by your lordship’s own confession. And justifi- —

cation not applied is no justification in regard of
him to whom it is not applied ; for what is he the
better for it?”

The bishop answered, that he was justified in
the sight of God, by the grace of predestination
and election.

‘* This is as much to say,’ quoth my Lord of
Rochester, “‘ as that God cannot see any sin in
the elect; a wholesome doctrine for the health of
men’s souls!’ And my lord chamberlain added,
that his soul abhorreth from it.

But the Dean of Carlisle went on, and rejected
the Bishop of Lichfield’s answer with some dis-
taste. ‘ Know you not, my lord,” quoth he,
** that according to Thomas, and all other intelli-
gent divines, predestinatio nihil ponit in predesti-
nato until it come to execution in time, it being an
imminent act of God. If it be God’s predesti-
nation that always makes aman to be in the state
of justification, then was St. Paul a justified man
when he was knocking out St. Stephen’s brains,
and all the while that he continued to blaspheme
and persecute the Church; and then was I a
doctor of divinity when I was in my mother’s
belly. God’s predestination is his eternal pur-

OF FALLING FROM GRACE: 253

pose that things shall be done in time; and that
which shall be done in time hath no temporal
existence or being until the time come that it be
done. For though God ordained that I should
be a doctor, yet was I not so until the time came.
And I beseech your lordship, what good will you
get by this doctrine, to persuade men, that if once,

in all their lifetime, they have been in the state

of grace and justification, they should presently
assure themselves of their salvation, by a grace of
predestination conceived to remain in them? What
will follow, but that always after they shall re-
main justified and sanctified men in God’s sight,
although they walk in the meanwhile after the
flesh, and continue in foul and wilful sins ?”’

“Teach you this doctrine, divinity?” quoth
my lord duke to the Bishop of Lichfield. ‘* God
defend us from following of it!” The Earls of
Pembroke and Carlisle added, that to their under-
standing it was a most pernicious doctrine, and
unfit for any people to hear.

** We teach not men to live thus,”’ quoth the
bishop. Yet his answer giving small satisfaction,
for that out of his tenet men might take advan-
tage to live so, and yet persuade themselves that
they are God’s elect children all the while; Dr.
Preston was called upon by my Lord Say, and
the lords desired to hear him speak unto this
point.

254: THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

Whereupon the doctor came in, and began
very soberly to declare that it was none of his —
desire to say any thing; but yet seeing it pleased
their lordships to have it so, he would endeavour —
to answer Dr. White’s objections, and to make i

the matter as clear and evident as might be. :

*“* And first,’ quoth he, “I will give your :
lordships an example, by which it will easily ap-
pear, that notwithstanding that which hath been
said concerning these sins, whereinto the children
of God may fall, and sometimes do fall, yet it
was impossible they should fall away from that
grace whereby they are his children. As, for
example :— |

“* A man hath a son, and this son doth justly
offend his father by committing some great crimes
against him: his faults continue, and he is not
yet reclaimed. Now, all this while he is sud ira
patris indeed, under the rod and anger of his
father, yet for all that he continueth in familia
and in domo patris still; he is not turned out of
his father’s house, nor can he cease to be his
child howsoever. In like manner, when God’s
children sin against him, God may well be angry
with them, and sorely punish them too; yet in
regard they are his children, he cannot cease to
be their father, nor will he turn them out of his
family, and make strangers of them, for every sin
which they commit against him,”

we ‘¥-

OF FALLING FROM GRACE. 255

To this it was answered, that the question
was not made of every sin, but of foul and wilful
sins, sins mortal, sins continued in, often acted
and frequented, as was expressed before; and
therefore that Dr. Preston’s talk of every sin was

4 impertinent.

“‘ But for the other sins you insist upon,”
quoth the Bishop of Lichfield, “ did not the pro-
digal son, when he was in his dissolute course of
life, remain his father’s son still, and continue in
his affection as a son ?”’

The dean answered, “ That the prodigal son,
being a natural child to his father, could not lose
that relation which a son hath to a father; for
natural relations are permanent, so long as their
foundation is in being: but the present question
is, concerning sons by grace and adoption only.”

Here my Lord of Rochester interposed, and told
Dr. Preston that his example of a natural [father]
and his child could hold no farther and prove no
more than a perpetual relation betwixt God and
his creatures, which no man could cease to be,
because he created them; but as for their filiation
and right of inheritance to the kingdom of heaven,
they had it by covenant and promise, and ought
not to presume upon it longer than they keep the
covenant.

Adding hereunto, that oftentimes men’s own
children, howsoever they be children still, yet

256 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

through their lewd life and disobedience are dis-
inherited by their parents, and justly exposed
unto misery.

‘TI pray resolve me,” quoth the lord cham-
berlain to the Bishop of Lichfield, “ whether the
prodigal son, in whom you made instance, if he
had died in his lewd courses before his return to
his father, had he not died a disobedient child,
and perished in his misery ?”

“He had,”’ quoth the bishop; “ but yet a
child.”

** So shall all men whatsoever die God’s crea-
tures,”’ quoth my Lord of Rochester. ‘ But was

not the state of the prodigal a representation of

their state that live in wickedness and sin; and
of their perdition, if they die in that sin, before
they turn back again unto God by repentance ?”’

‘‘'They shall turn back again,” quoth Dr.
Preston. -

“* How know you that?” said my lord cham-
berlain.

““ By reason of their election,” quoth the
doctor; “‘ which is sure not to fail, and will bring
them in time to repentance.”

“In time ?”’ quoth the dean: “ but while that
time comes, in what state are they? Be not these
children of God guilty of his eternal anger till
they repent ?”’ |

“ No,” quoth Dr. Preston ; “ it is but of his

4 eee

OF BAPTISM AND REGENERATION. 257

temporal anger only.””. And without any more
ado repeated it again as a possible and certain
doctrine, that they which were once the children
of God, did by such grievous sins incur the guilt
of a temporal punishment only.

The dean replied, “ That temporal punish-

_ ments were common to the children of God with
_ others that are none of his children. But the

apostle St. Paul spake to justified men, when he
gave them warning, and said, ‘ They that dosuch
things have no inheritance in the kingdom of God
nor of Christ ;? and when he said so, he spake not
of temporal, but of eternal punishment.”

‘Yea, but,” quoth Dr. Preston, “ such per-
sons, though they might seem to be, yet in truth
they never were sons, nor ever had any right to
that inheritance whereof St. Paul speaks.”

OF BAPTISM AND REGENERATION.

“ No?” quoth the dean. “I hope you will
grant us that, at leastwise, in ‘ baptism they were
made the sons of God, and the heirs of everlasting
life.’ They be the words of our catechism, and
the whole series of our administration of baptism
sheweth as much.”

« What,” quoth my Lord of Lichfield, “ will
you have the grace of God tied to sacraments ?”’

The dean replied, “That God could bestow his
grace otherwise, as it pleased him; but if his

258 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

lordship denied sacraments to confer grace, and
to regenerate them that were born in original sin,
he denied the doctrine of the Church of Eng-
land.” :

The Liturgy was produced, and the words read
out of the form of baptism, “ Forasmuch as this
infant is regenerate,” &c.

“« That’s but the judgment of charity,”’ quoth
my Lord Say. ‘“ And we say so, because we
know nothing to the contrary,” quoth the Bishop
of Lichfield.

Mr. Cosin suggested, that “ to believe one
baptism for the remission of sins,’’ was an article
of Christian faith ; and that our form of baptism
saith, ‘* ye shall earnestly believe it.”

*“* Yea,”’ quoth the bishop, “ but what follows ?
‘ Ye shall earnestly believe that God will favour-
ably receive these present infants, that he will
embrace them, and that he will give unto them
the blessing of eternal life.” Mark,” quoth the
bishop, “ he will do it. The book doth not say
that he doth it now, but that in process of time
he will do it, when these children shall actually
believe; and so here is no present effect of bap-
tism proved.” It was answered, that the cate-
chism of the Church teacheth children other doc-
trine: “In baptism I was made a member of
Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom of
heaven.”’. And again, in the administration of

; lige

4

OF BAPTISM AND REGENERATION. 259

baptism: “I certify you, that this child being
born in sin and in the wrath of God, is now, by

_ the laver of regeneration in baptism, received
_ into the number of the children of God, and heir
_ of everlasting life. Doubt ye not, therefore, but

earnestly believe that He hath received this pre-
sent infant, that He hath made him partaker of
His everlasting kingdom,” &c. And yet again:
** We give thee hearty thanks, that it hath pleased

_ thee to regenerate this infant,” &c.

Hereupon my Lord of Warwick desired Mr.
Cosin to turn to the burial of the dead, where
he should find such another giving of thanks for
every brother departed, &c.; whereof some might
be such, as though we had no uncharitable
conceit of them, yet we were not tied to believe
they were saved, and should have perfect con-
summation in soul and body in the kingdom of
heaven.

“ Yea, my lord,”’ quoth he, “ here is giving
of thanks and hope only mentioned; but in bap-
tism faith and certain assurance go together with
giving of thanks.” And his lordship seemed to
be satisfied.

In the meanwhile, my lord duke and the Earl
of Carlisle demanded of the Bishop of Lichfield,
why children are baptised, if they received no
grace, nor remission of sins by it? And told him,
that he had much disparaged his own ministry,

260 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

and did not only dishonour the Church of Eng-
land, but also debase the sacrament through this
opinion which he maintained.

Lastly, the Dean of Carlisle added, that it
was.a branch of Catholic faith, and had been so
maintained in all ages, that infants rightly bap-
tised are regenerated and made the sons of God
by adoption. He alleged St. Augustine, Expl. 90,
reporting the decree of the council of Carthage,
** Quicumque negat parvulos per baptismum Christi
perditione liberari, et salutem percipere eternam,
anathema sit.” And consequently concluded, that
they which denied this doctrine, expressly denied
the doctrine of the Church of England, but of the
whole Catholic Church besides, and were guilty
of a far greater error than any they could object
against Mr. Montague.

OF THE SYNOD OF DORT.

When the matter was come to this issue, and
the lords ready to break off any further confer-
ence for this time, most of them professing them-
selves hitherto satisfied, it pleased the Lord Say
and Secretary Coke to make a motion to the
duke’s grace, that he would be a means to bring
in the synod of Dort, and get it established here
by authority in the Church of England. Where-
by (they make no doubt) all controversies in this
kind would cease, and a firm peace ensue.

6 Se i ie, ee | Be

OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 261

** Nay, my lords,” quoth the duke, “ this is
- not the first motion that hath been made for the
_ synod of Dort; but I have been assured by divers
_ grave and learned prelates, that it can neither
stand with the safety of this Church nor state to
bring it in.”

“<T beseech your lordships,” said the dean,
“‘ that we of the Church of England be not put
to borrow a new faith from any village in the
Netherlands. As for the synod. of Dort, it
seemeth to me, that in the second article, either
plainly or involvedly, they have established a doc-
trine repugnant to the faith of our Church. The
Dortists (as appeareth by their several expositions
of that article) have denied that Christ died for
all men. But our Church, in the catechism, and
many other places, hath taught us to believe that
Christ died for all, ‘ and hath redeemed me and
all mankind ;’ that is, paid the ransom and price
for all without exception: and that if any man
be damned, it is not because Christ died not for
him, but because the fruit of Christ’s death, by
that man’s own fault, is not applied unto him.
Adding hereunto, that a great and manifest mis-
chief it was, to have our people taught that Christ,
died not for them all. For if this were once ad-
mitted, how could we teach every man to believe
that Christ had redeemed him, as we ought to
do? Or how could we say to all communicants

262 THE FIRST CONFERENCE.

whatsoever, ‘ The body of our Lord which was
given for thee,’ as we are bound to say? Let
the opinion of the Dortists be admitted, and the
tenth person in the Church shall not have been
redeemed.”

“The body of our Lord? Yea,” quoth the
Bishop of Lichfield, “ it is said to be given for
them, if men do repent.” What if they have
no repentance ?”’ quoth the dean. “The greater
is their fault.” “ But shall they not therefore
believe the articles of their creed? and it is one
of those articles to believe that Christ hath re-
deemed them.”

“* Let the synod of Dort bind them that have
submitted themselves unto it,’ said the Lords
Pembroke and Carlisle: “‘ in England we have a
rule of our own.” And the lord duke added:
* We have nothing to do with that synod; it is
all about the hidden and intricate points of pre-
destination, which are not fit matters to trouble
the people withal.”’

‘* Predestination ?”? quoth my Lord of Lich-
field. “ Our own articles speak of predestina-
tion ; and it is a very comfortable doctrine to the
elect people of God, explained in the seventeenth
article.”

“ But, may it please your lordship,” quoth
Mr. Cosin, “ the conclusion of that article ‘is,
that predestination is so be taught, as that the

— sc SC

¥)
v
i
;

OF THE SYNOD OF DORT. 263

_ general promises of the Gospel be not destroyed
ie by it.”

And here was an end; only the Bishop of

i Lichfield, for a conclusion of all, desired that Mr.
_ M.’s books might be kept from further sale until
_ they were somewhat better explained.

At which motion the duke, with some dis-

4 pleasure, turned himself hastily away, and told
_ the bishop he was not admitted thither for to

_ appoint what should be done with Mr. M.’s

_ books, but to shew his objections against them,

which as yet were not so weighty as to persuade

any such matter.

And so desiring the lords, &c. to meet again

_ upon Tuesday following, when Mr. M. should be

there himself, they all left the chamber and de-
parted.

THE END.

LONDON :

PRINTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY, AND FRANKLYYS,
46 St. Martin’s Lane.

Cosin, John ——_-——-~

2220 The history of

| | 083 Popish transub stantia-
' + tion .
| it Se amen
| ISSUED TO

; bet saat te ks 4 i; a é oh
eas
of ¥ abl ie eo ert I

CEG Wanted tae tata Ft

Bik

i ai Yt A phetevees sels if

arena aca ANE

SSR ta MULE HN ayn
RCN bI ees OP <j
DULL asn oe Ba
Xs a tae M dirt tara tL |
aye i Hohl . Bae se

ae
ae

Ht hte
re be a8 + iy e
feat : ; ‘ ei irs
ff { rs st o
of 35 ; #: ty

=

nee
Bb
ie

oe,
as

; | PL, a4 i qaitg
Menara iho:
ihe niatpk ed rently
yy bes yf 9 cle Ieesieealtts th main! y
Mest d eet lay UE eta spite
Hee coe

snp y oy bey Milt be F zy ;
ae
i ats AP dn vat ry 7 why
f ey ae Pincay fue, te
Meta ey |

yeti
Gai ieee i dase

tebe Hid ty
x ‘

>

2 bon
Eyed sek
SC Gp em:

s

: =e
a

be Saig! r Lae 43 pits BI * i ;
: tus ip ae x ts uy. ; vas fas }
la ty oF es + ti a4 be 4 : £4
" } “| Pals eine te) my ij fi ml ia j
; ae MERA Jip
aia eisbes PU